Andrew Waugh KC
UK Bar Guide 2025
Band 1 : Intellectual Property
Band 1
About
Provided by Andrew Waugh KC
Practice Areas
Andrew Waugh KC has a general intellectual property practice with a particular emphasis on the patents and supplementary protection certificates. His background has led to a particular emphasis on chemical, pharmaceutical and bio-technical/genetic engineering matters as well as a broader commercial practice, including arbitrations involving a significant scientific/technical content.
Tribunals in front of which Andrew most frequently appears include not only the Courts of England and Wales, at first instance, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court level, but also before the Patent Office and the European Patent Office in Munich and the Hague.
Career
• Graduated in 1980 from City University, London with a 1st class honours degree in Chemical and Administrative Studies which
included subjects on vitamin chemistry, structure and reactivity correlations and materials science and a thesis on pharmaceutical
Research and Development.
• Undertook the postgraduate Diploma in law in 1981.
• Called to the Bar 1982.
• Pupillage with Martin Moore-Bick 1982, 3 Essex Court (The Chambers of Kenneth Rokison KC).
• Pupillage with Simon Thorley 1983, 6 Pump Court (The Chambers of William Aldous KC).
• Queen's Counsel 1998.
• Head of Chambers at Three New Square IP from April 2018.
• Band 1 rated in Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 for over 20 years
Professional Memberships
Vice Chair of the Intellectual Property Bar Association, Chancery Bar Association, AIPPLA, EPLAW
Publications
Co-Editor of Terrell on the law of Patents, 18th, 19th and 20th Editions.
Personal
Andrew cycles daily and has a keen interest in all sports, especially cycling, football and rugby and is a past-Judicial Officer of the RFU Disciplinary Panel.
Clients
Andrew has acted for many major international companies, including: Boston Scientific, Merck, GSK, Moderna, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Grunenthal, Takeda, Hoechst, Kirin-Amgen, Biogen, Angiotech, Lundbeck, New York University, Genentech, Doewe Egberts, Medtronic and Monsanto,
Work Highlights
Supreme Court Cases include:
• Biogen v Medeva (Recombinant HCV, acting for Biogen)
• Conor v Angiotech (Taxol Eluting Stents, Acting for Angiotech)
• Synthon v GSK (Paroxetine, acting for GSK)
• Lundbeck v Mylan (Escitalopram, acting for Lundbeck)
• ICOS v Actavis (Tadalafil 5mg, Acting for ICOS)
• Actavis v Lilly (Pemetrexed, Acting for Lilly)
Other notable UK cases include:
• Semi-conductor devices (General Instrument v. Intel);
• Coding for compact discs (Optical Recording Corp. v. Hayden Labs);
• Flight simulators (Rediffusion Simulation v. Singer Link Miles);
• Contact lenses (Cibavision v Johnson & Johnson, Dublin);
• Copaxone (Generics/Mylan v Yeda Research and Development Co Ltd);
• Escitalopram (No.2) (Resolution Chemicals v H.Lundbeck);
• Antibodies to Amyloid-beta, for the treatment of Altzheimer’s Disease (Eli Lilly & Company v Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy);
• Cinacalcet for the treatment of bone disorders (Amgen v Accord);
• Anti-PD1 antibodies for the treatment of cancer (Merck Sharp & Dohme v Ono);
• Copaxone (discolouration) (Synthon v Teva);
• Sofosbuvir for the treatment of HCV (Idenix v Gilead);
• Vedolzumab (Entyvio) antibodies for the treatment of Ulcerative Colitis (Takeda v Roche);
• Adalimumab (Humira) for the treatment of RA inter alia (Samsung and Biiogen v AbbVie);
• Anti-IL23 antibodies for the treatment of psoriasis (Eli Lilly v Merck);
• Anti-IL17 antibodies for the treatment of psoriasis (Eli Lilly v Genentech);
• Anti-CGRP antibodies for the treatment of migraine (Eli Lilly v Teva);
• Slow release melatonin for insomnia (Neurim v Generics); Patch-worn
• Insulin pumps (Insulet v Roche);
• Arbitration (refaxamin - amorphous rifaximin) – Cipla v Salix;
• Factor IX inhibitor (Xaralto) (Teva and ors v Pfizer);
• Covid-19 mRNA vaccines (Moderna v Pfizer);
• Gene Therapy for type B haemophilia (Pfizer v UniQure);
• Eculizumab – complement inhibiting antibody (Alexion v Amgen).
A small selection of notable EPO cases includes:
• EP 2,996,521 – Acted for Doewe Egberts (Patentees) in resisting oppositions by Nestec, Belmoca, Caffitaly and ors before the OD
and the TBA.
• EP 1,623,350 - Acted for Genentech Inc (Proprietor) in T734/12 in respect of oppositions to EP in respect of “Therapy of
automimmune disease in a patient with an inadequate response of a TNF-alpha inhibitor” (novelty of distinct patient population);
• EP1,213,919 - Acted for ROVI/United Video Properties (Proprietor) ‘’Interactive Television Guide System”;
• EP 748,213 - Nektar Inc - Opposition by Lillly - Subject matter: Inhalable insulin - acted for Patentee before Opposition Division.
• EPA 96915698.3 - Genentech Inc. - subject matter: use of IGF-1 to sustain biological response .
• EP 237,545 - Kirin-Amgen (Opponents: ICI, Kyowa Hakko, Boehringer Mannheim). Subject matter: recombinant granulocyte colony
stimulating factor (G-CSF).
• EP 702,555 - Pfizer Ltd. - (Opponents Lilly Corp, ICOS Corp and ors) - Subject matter: PDEV inhibitors for the treatment of impotence.
• EP 37,255 - Eli Lilly (Opponent - Hoechst) Subject matter: Process for the recombination of the A & B chains of insulin.
• EP 203,945 - Bonzel (Opponent: Advanced Cardiovascular Systems) Subject matter: Catheters for Percutaneous Transluminal
Coronary Angioplasty.
• EP 235,691 - Hoechst (Opponent - Eli Lilly) Mixing ball for insulin suspensions.
• EP 237,545 - Kirin-Amgen (Opponents: ICI, Kyowa Hakko, Boehringer Mannheim). Subject matter: recombinant granulocyte colony
stimulating factor (G-CSF).; EP 182,442 - Biogen, Inc. (Opponents: Murex, Institut Pasteur, Immuno, Hexal-Biotech). Subject matter:
recombinant hepatitis B viral antigens.
• EP 148,605 - Amgen, Inc. (Opponents: Elanex, Behringwerke, Boerhringer-Mannheim Immuno) Subject matter: recombinant
erythropoietin.
• EP 209,539 - Genetics Institute, Inc (Opponents: Cilag GmbH, Kirin-Amgen, Inc) subject matter: “Homogeneous Erythropoietin”.
• EP 375,724 – New York University (Opposition by Incyte Corp). Subject matter: Bacteriocidal Permeability Increasing proteins (BPI).
Awards
Intellectual Property Silk of the Year
AI Awards
2013
IP/IT Silk of the Year, Chambers & Partners
Chambers & Partners
2010
IP/IT Silk of the Year, Chambers & Partners
Chambers & Partners
2009
Chambers Review
UK Bar
Andrew Waugh KC is a tenacious and detail-oriented advocate with a strong reputation for patent litigation in the biotechnology field. He is highly experienced in invalidation and revocation attempts as well as claims for infringement. He is regularly instructed by both domestic and international pharmaceutical companies and has experience acting in the Supreme Court.
Strengths
Provided by Chambers
"Andrew is an excellent advocate who simplifies and cuts through issues."
"The top life sciences patent silk at the bar. He leaves no stone unturned, is always a pleasure to work with and respects to everyone's input, no matter how junior."
"Andrew is an excellent advocate who simplifies and cuts through issues."
"The top life sciences patent silk at the bar. He leaves no stone unturned, is always a pleasure to work with and respects to everyone's input, no matter how junior."
Discover other Barristers at
Three New Square IP
Silks (KC)
London (Bar)
Juniors
London (Bar)
Key Sectors
Provided by Three New Square IP
Health and Life Sciences
Technology, Media and Telecoms (TMT)