Chambers UK 2021 recognises EIP’s expertise

No items found.
​
October 22, 2020
No items found.
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

EIP has been highly rated in the 2021 edition of Chambers & Partners UK.

Researchers highlighted EIP for its “excellent patent prosecution and oppositions practice” and its “highly capable trademark and designs offering” and notes the “much admired in-house patent litigation team”.

Sources comment: "They consistently make significant efforts to achieve desirable goals for the clients," while another praises the firm's "depth of knowledge."

The litigation team garners praise as "Their experience in FRAND issues is pretty much unrivalled."

Partners Jerome Spaargaren and Gary Moss received recommendations as notable practitioners.

Jerome "is a quick and deep thinker, and his ideas are full of originality."

Gary is a “very experienced litigator with a good feel for what is a good or bad point” and "is extremely bright and is always cognisant of achieving the objectives."

Further details on Chambers UK 2021 rankings can be viewed here.

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Seriously deficient disclosure process not sufficient to reopen costs order - Cabo v MGA
08 April 2026
A High Court decision highlighting the consequences of inadequate disclosure searches under PD57AD and reaffirming that costs orders are final, even where later failures come to light.
​
UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​