Plausibility after Warner-Lambert and G2/21: Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, provides a case analysis of Sandoz and Teva v Bristol Myers Squibb – Court of Appeal.READ MORE
Paul is Partner and Head of Litigation at Dehns, having joined the firm in 2021. He has 38 years’ experience in handling intellectual property matters: both non-contentious and contentious. In relation to patents, he deals with a wide variety of technologies including complex chemical cases, electronics and mechanical patents.
For patent litigation, Paul successfully defended Black & Decker in an action brought by Electrolux, the outcome of which led to changes in the Patents Court guidelines on experiments and expert’s reports. He was also involved in the erythropoietin litigation (Kirin Amgen) and stent litigation (Boston Scientific). More recently, Paul acted for the defendant in Icescape v Ice-World International: the first case to apply the doctrine of equivalence following Actavis v Eli Lilly.
Paul is also noted in trade mark matters (registered and unregistered), having successfully litigated the first case under the Trade Marks Act 1994 (Wagamama Ltd v City Centre Restaurants plc). More recently, he was involved in the latest extended passing off case: Fage v Chobani, and again was successful when acting for Stanley, Black & Decker in a trade mark infringement/jurisdictional battle involving a former distributor (The Black & Decker Corporation v Dvize).
He is also known for his confidential information practice and handled the Dyson v Strutt litigation, relating to misuse of confidential information, and the same litigation on important issues of costs. He also led the successful team in the First Conference v Bracchi case, which included executing an interlocutory search and seizure order against the defendant.
On the non-contentious side, Paul’s skill and experience in analysing and solving strategic IP matters is called upon by many international clients. It ranges from trade mark problems and licensing strategies, to patent analysis and assessment. He has also been instrumental in the negotiation and preparation of international licensing arrangements for patents and trademarks, and has been involved in many non-contentious dealings including corporate support by way of due diligence relating to the sale of businesses and the licensing of the IP, preparation of multi-national licensing and cross-licensing arrangements (including co-existence agreements), and most notably the £2 billion sale to Du Pont of ICI’s film business. Paul has also overseen programmes for the registration of trademarks in many overseas jurisdictions. He also deals with the copyright and design right field, and has acted for a management buy-out team in relation to computer software and computer hardware.
Paul has lectured on both patents and trade marks, as well as confidential information. He is well-known domestically and internationally and has been invited to speak at international conferences as far afield as Bulgaria, Egypt, the UK and USA. He has also had the privilege of teaching aspects of trade mark law on the Intellectual Property Diploma Course at the University of Oxford, since 1995. He has written many articles over the years, particularly on patent and trade mark issues.
Paul has been regularly highlighted and acknowledged as a leading IP expert in various leading legal and IP directories. This has included:
“Solicitor Paul Harris is a senior member of the litigation team, with the skill to take over and turn around cases in which adverse decisions have been handed down for other firms.” – World Trademark Review 1000, 2021
‘All-sector solicitor Paul Harris is a “thoroughly straightforward person who manages to get right into the issues that need to be addressed – he responds quickly, works within budgets and is always easy to understand”.’ – Client Testimonial, IAM Patent 1000 (Bronze) for Patent Litigation – 2020
Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, discusses a rare case which highlights the need for caution in both drafting around prior art provided by the inventor/applicant and giving validity opinions on the same.READ MORE
Given that the ‘average consumer’ is a legal construct, and ‘honest use in industrial and commercial matters’ as well as ‘honest concurrent use’ are considered objectively, it is questionable whether actual witnesses are going to be of any real assistance to the court in deciding these matters.READ MORE
Arrow declaration misses its target: Paul Harris, Head of Litigation at Dehns, considers the extent to which the Patents Court will go in order to provide a “spin-off value” for one party, in the courts of another jurisdiction.