Christy Rogers
1999, Middle Temple
MA (Cantab) Nat Sci

Christy Rogers

Christy has practised continuously as an intellectual property specialist since joining chambers as a pupil in 1999.  Before reading for the Bar, she took a degree in Natural Sciences at Downing College, Cambridge, specialising in Genetics. She maintains an interest in biological sciences, and her academic background equips her easily to handle cases involving biotechnology and general technical and scientific content.

Christy has experience of all fields of intellectual property law, both UK and European, including matters involving patents and registered designs; trade marks, trade names and passing off; copyright in all the various media including software; unregistered design rights; database right; privacy, confidentiality and trade secrets; defamation and trade libel; as well as commercial and contractual matters relating to technical subject matter and to the entertainment business.

Christy regularly accepts direct instructions from patent and trade mark attorneys, and also  Public Access intructions.  She appears in the Trade Marks Registry and Patents County Court as well as the High Court, Appeal Courts and the European Court .  She has experience of advising in non-contentious matters as well as  in more usual contentious situations.   In addition, Christy has been admitted to the State Bar of California, and undertakes work in the UK for US attorneys and corporate clients.  She has delivered lectures to a variety of expert audiences including the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys.

 

Scholarships

  • Queen Mother Fox scholarship (Middle Temple 1998)

Professional Memberships:

  • Intellectual Property Bar Association
  • Chancery Bar Association
  • State Bar of California
  • Associate of the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys

Reported Cases

Publications

Current Awareness

FNM Corp Ltd v (1) Drammock Int Ltd (2) LEC (L'pool) Ltd, Ch Div (Arnold J), 15/06/09, [2009] EWHC 1294 (Pat)

In this high court patent trial, the largely victorious defendants were represented by Matthew Kime of these chambers, led by Alastair Wilson QC. Of particular note in the judgment is a ruling on the new s.70(2A) of the Patents Act 1977, concerning threats made in relation to a patent found to be invalid. It was held that the patentee did not have “reason to suspect” that the patent was invalid, without specifically identified invalidating prior art being drawn to their attention in correspondence from the alleged infringer, prior to any of the threats. The take-home message for patent lawyers is that, in a dispute where an allegation of invalidity of the patent is likely to be raised, and where threats may be made, then it seems relevant pieces of prior art should be identified specifically to the other side at the earliest possible stage. More >>

More News

© 2009 7 New Square unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved. Design: Underground Creative