Christopher Hall

Call: 2010

Chris excels in all aspects of intellectual property and IP-related contractual and financial disputes. His clients range from blue chip companies and household brands to SMEs and individuals, spanning a wide range of industries.

With a 1^st in physics from Imperial College followed by experience working as an IT project manager at a major telecommunications company, Chris’ technical background gives him an edge.

An established trial advocate, Chris is also a popular and effective junior. He is frequently instructed in major and multi-national litigation.

Chris’ recent technical patent experience covers military hardware (AMI v Martin Baker; Remfry v Belcan), electronics (Lufthansa v Astronics; Hand Held Products v Zebra), pharmaceuticals (Dr Reddy’s v Boehringer Ingelheim; Novartis v Teva), medical devices (Abbott v Dexcom), manufacturing processes (Heraeus Noblelight v First Light Lamps), and oil wells (Hydra Systems v Titan Torque).

Experience includes major financial disputes: the account of profits in Lufthansa v Astronics; the FRAND trial in InterDigital v Oppo; and the pregabalin damages inquiry (Warner-Lambert v Dr Reddy’s).

In 2025 Chris appeared in two major interim injunction applications, with both trials pending – Aviator v Spribe (trade mark & copyright) and Dr Reddy’s v Boehringer (patent) – and represented Apple and LEVC in trade mark disputes. Notable trade mark cases have involved signs in foreign script (Lappet), and small scale use (Stone v Wenman). In 2022 Chris was involved in a major sports betting database case (Genius Sports).

Since 2019 Chris is an ‘expert’ adjudicator in Nominet’s domain name dispute resolution service.

View Privacy Notice

Recent & Notable Cases

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 964

This was the most significant account of profits in a patent infringement action to come before the higher courts in recent years. The case concerned mains voltage power supplies in passenger airline seats. The appea...

The appeal engaged three important issues of law.

First, the Court of Appeal decided the proper approach to causation in an account of profits under s.61(1)(d) Patents Act 1977, by answering the question how does one ascertain the profits derived from the infringement? The Court held that apportionment is normally the appropriate approach ([111]; [159]), but that a ‘differential profits’ approach may in some cases be a useful tool [160]. In either approach, the Court held, contrary to the interpretation placed upon the House of Lords’ decision in United Horse Shoe and Nail Co v Stewart by Laddie J in Celanese International v BP Chemicals, that it is permissible for the court to consider whether there were any non-infringing alternative courses of action by which the defendant could, in the counterfactual, have made some or all of the profits it actually made [101].

Second, the Court of Appeal considered the question of the award of interest on a sum payable on an account of profits, holding that simple interest was available from the date on which the profits were accrued both under the court’s equitable jurisdiction [290], and under s.35A(1) Senior Courts Act 1981 [302].

Third, the Court considered the proper interpretation of s.67 Patents Act 1977 and the rights of an exclusive licensee to recover an infringer’s profits. The Court held that insofar as a defendant carries out acts of infringement of the rights of an exclusive licensee as such, then it is the exclusive licensee, not the patentee, who is entitled to claim the infringer’s profits derived from those infringements, and that in a case brought by a patentee under s.61(1)(d) the court must take into consideration the rights of any exclusive licensee ([257]-[258]).

Hugo Cuddigan KC and Christopher Hall acted for the patentee, Lufthansa. Iain Purvis KC and Piers Acland KC acted for the defendants, Astronics, Safran and Panasonic.

[2026] EWCA Civ 964

Aviator LLC v Spribe OÜ [2026] EWHC 1216 (Ch)

Aviator alleges that Spribe’s use of certain logos in its online gambling ‘crash’ game in the UK amounts to an infringement of Aviator’s UK copyright. It also advances a claim for infringement of several overseas copyri...

AMI Industries, Inc. v Martin Baker Aircraft Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1027 (Pat)

AMI’s patent was to an aircraft ejection seat headrest intended to reduce head and neck injuries caused to pilots during ejection. The dynamics of an ejection initially force the pilot’s head down towards their chest, t...

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited v Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH [2025] EWHC 2834 (Pat)

Boehringer sought an interim injunction, applying the American Cyanamid principles, to prevent Dr Reddy’s from launching a generic version of the drug empagliflozin for which Boehringer holds several patents. Empaglif...

Boehringer sought an interim injunction, applying the American Cyanamid principles, to prevent Dr Reddy’s from launching a generic version of the drug empagliflozin for which Boehringer holds several patents.

Empagliflozin is an inhibitor of the sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter SGLT2. It is licensed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. Dr Reddy’s had sought declarations of invalidity in respect of two of Boehringer’s patents, and the trial was listed for October 2026. At the time of the hearing, Dr Reddy’s was the only generic company ready and willing to launch generic empagliflozin in the UK.

An alternative SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, is also licensed to treat type 2 diabetes. The patent protecting dapagliflozin was declared invalid on 28 April 2025, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal on 16 July 2025. On 31 July 2025 the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal. A number of generic dapagliflozin products were immediately launched, in response to which the reimbursement price for dapagliflozin declined rapidly and the NHS issued guidance recommending that dapagliflozin be the first-line SGLT2 inhibitor for new patients and that existing empagliflozin patients be pro-actively switched to dapagliflozin.

Dr Reddy’s contended the likely consequence would be a rapid and significant decline in the empagliflozin market – around 90% within 3-9 months – and that such decline would make the empagliflozin market commercially unattractive for any third party entrant. Therefore, said Dr Reddy’s, it was likely to be the only company supplying generic empagliflozin, there would be no price spiral, and damages would be an adequate remedy for Boehringer.

The Judge however agreed with Boehringer that the decline in the empagliflozin market would not be so rapid or significant, that there was a real risk of other generic companies entering the market before trial, and that damages would not be an adequate remedy for Boehringer (including because it would suffer non-financial loss to jobs, product pipelines, and partnership programmes).

Weighing up the balance of convenience, the Judge granted an interim injunction to preserve the status quo and because Dr Reddy’s had failed to take effective steps to clear the way.

Mark Vanhegan KC and Christopher Hall represented Dr Reddy’s. Edward Cronan represented Boehringer.

[2025] EWHC 2834 (Pat)

Aviator LLC v Spribe Oü [2025] EWHC 2153 (Ch)

This was an application by Spribe for an interim injunction to prevent trade mark infringement and passing off. The interesting legal aspects of the dispute were the Respondent’s assertions that: (i) Spribe had brought...

Angel Advance Limited v Gregory Pennington Limited [2025, unreported]

This trial, brought in the IPEC Small Claims Track, concerned the alleged infringement of copyright subsisting in the content of an online debt advice tool provided by the claimant. The claimant failed to prove that it...

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & others [2025] EWHC 375 (Pat)

This is the judgment in an account of profits following the liability trial ([2020] EWHC 1968 (Pat)) concerning infringement of Lufthansa’s patent for an aircraft passenger in-seat power supply system. Astronics manufact...

InterDigital Technology Corporation v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications & others [heard April 2024; settled October 2024 before judgment]

This was the fourth FRAND dispute to reach a substantive UK trial. The Court was asked to declare the appropriate FRAND terms, including the lump sum payment, for Oppo to license InterDigital’s 3G, 4G and 5G SEP portfol...

Abbott Laboratories Limited v Dexcom Incorporated [2024] EWHC 1664 (Pat)

This patent case is part of the global litigation between the Abbott and Dexcom groups of companies relating to their continuous glucose monitoring devices. This trial (referred to in the UK litigation as ‘Trial B’) con...

Remfry v (1) GKN Aerospace Services; (2) Belcan Test Systems UK [2024] EWHC 1691 (Ch)

This patent infringement dispute concerns refuelling couplings for AJAX tanks. On this application for strike out / summary dismissal, the Patents Court considered the ‘knowledge’ requirement of indirect infringement in...

Titan Torque Services v Hydra Systems AS BL O/0508/24

This dispute concerned oil well drilling technology, in particular the process of plugging and abandonment of spent oil wells. Titan Torque sought declarations of non-infringement from the Comptroller General of Patents...

Heraeus Noblelight Ltd v First Light Lamps Ltd [2023] EWHC 1950 (Pat)

This patent infringement / validity action concerned a manufacturing method for sealing electrodes into the ends of high performance quartz glass arc lamps. The key issues of general interest discussed in the...

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories & others v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2023] EWCA Civ 73

In the latest instalment in the fallout from the pregabalin litigation, Warner-Lambert had sought to amend its case on the damages inquiry to introduce an attempt to reduce the damages payable upon their cross-undertaking by arguing that Dr Reddy’s should not be entitled to recover the profits it would have made on the proportion of its lost sales of skinny-label pregabalin that would have been used by patients for the treatment of inflammatory pain. Warner-Lambert put its case on two bases:

(1) An ex-turpi causa argument that such sales would have involved an infringement by pharmacists, pursuant to sections 60(1)(b) and/or 60(2) of the 1977 Act, of those claims of the patent which related to inflammatory pain and which were not declared invalid during the liability phase.

(2) A contention that such sales, even if they would not have involved any infringement of the patent, would nevertheless have been enabled by the second medical use disclosed by Warner-Lambert in the patent such that it would be unjust and inequitable for Warner-Lambert to have to pay compensation in respect of those sales. This argument was prefaced on the proposition that the grant of a patent confers upon the patentee, in addition to the right to bring claims for infringement, a non-statutory monopoly over the inventive concept disclosed in the patent.

At first instance, the Judge had rejected the first argument inter alia on the grounds of abuse of process, and the second argument on the basis that there was no monopoly beyond the confines of the statute.

The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the Judge’s conclusion on the first argument. In addition, Arnold and Nugee LJJ found that the claims of infringement by pharmacists had no realistic prospect of succeeding. Males LJ expressed “grave reservations” about the viability of the infringement case, but elected not to decide the appeal on that ground.

The second argument was unanimously rejected by the Court of Appeal, which confirmed that a patent confers no monopoly in respect of acts which do not infringe it.

Brian Nicholson KC and Christopher Hall represented Dr Reddy’s.

[2023] EWCA Civ 73

Christopher Hall

Recent & Notable Cases

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 964

Aviator LLC v Spribe OÜ [2026] EWHC 1216 (Ch)

AMI Industries, Inc. v Martin Baker Aircraft Company Ltd [2026] EWHC 1027 (Pat)

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited v Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH [2025] EWHC 2834 (Pat)

Aviator LLC v Spribe Oü [2025] EWHC 2153 (Ch)

Angel Advance Limited v Gregory Pennington Limited [2025, unreported]

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & others [2025] EWHC 375 (Pat)

InterDigital Technology Corporation v Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications & others [heard April 2024; settled October 2024 before judgment]

Abbott Laboratories Limited v Dexcom Incorporated [2024] EWHC 1664 (Pat)

Remfry v (1) GKN Aerospace Services; (2) Belcan Test Systems UK [2024] EWHC 1691 (Ch)

Titan Torque Services v Hydra Systems AS BL O/0508/24

Heraeus Noblelight Ltd v First Light Lamps Ltd [2023] EWHC 1950 (Pat)

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories & others v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2023] EWCA Civ 73

Lappet Manufacturing Company v London Textile Industries [2022] EWHC 1412 (Ch)

Genius Sports Technologies & others v Soft Construct (Malta) Limited & others [2022] EWHC 2308 (Ch)

Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited & others v Warner-Lambert Company LLC [2022] EWHC 1856 (Ch)

Novartis AG v (1) Teva UK, (2) Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK), and others [2022] EWHC 959 (Ch)

Hand Held Products, Inc. v Zebra Technologies Europe Limited & ors [2022] EWHC 640 (Ch)

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & others [2022] EWCA Civ 20

Claire Stone v Alexandra Wenman [2021] EWHC 2546 (IPEC)

Dr Reddy’s & Ranbaxy & ors v Warner-Lambert [2021] EWHC 2182 (Ch)

Facebook Ireland Limited v Voxer IP LLC [2021] EWHC 1377 (Pat)

Sky Limited v Sky Insurance [2020] EWHC 1627 (Ch) (unreported)

Foundation for the protection of the traditional cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v Babel Sajt [2020] EWHC 2858 (Ch)

Lufthansa Technik AG v Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems & others [2020] EWHC 1968 (Pat)

Shua Limited v Camp & Furnace (aka Bongo’s Bingo) [2019 – High Court, unreported]

Apple Retail UK Ltd v Qualcomm (UK) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1188 (Pat)

Alliance Surgical Plc v Byrne & Ors [2018] EWHC B9 (Ch)

Appearances before the Appointed Person and the Trade Marks Registry

What the Directories say