Edward Cronan

Call: 2018

In 2023 Edward was named ‘Junior IP Barrister of the Year’ by Managing IP. Law360 describes him as an “IP Heavyweight”, and Juve Patent says “his name continuously appears in multiple judgments alongside some of the city’s top KCs.”

Edward acts in high-profile cases relating to all areas of intellectual property, including patent litigation (Nokia v Oppo; AIM Sport v Sportvision; Advanced Bionics v MED-EL), trade mark litigation (Tesco v Lidl; Thom Browne v Adidas), copyright litigation (Getty Images v Stability AI) and FRAND licensing (Nokia v Oppo; Panasonic v Xiaomi; Motorola v Ericsson).

Edward has experience of cases in a wide array of technical fields including generative AI, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, vapes, video coding and streaming, polymers, cryptocurrency, electronics, 3G, 4G, 5G, xDSL, and fibre optics.

Prior to his call to the Bar, Edward was an associate in the IP litigation team at a major London firm. Edward has a particularly good understanding of what solicitors need from counsel, integrates quickly into new teams, and understands the importance of delivering a high level of service to his clients, from pre-issue to trial and beyond.

Edward has a first class degree in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge (ranking 3 of 143 in his class in Biological and Biomedical Sciences) and a distinction from the University of Oxford in the Law and Practice of Intellectual Property.

Edward has worked on disputes in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice, as well as in the UKIPO and the EPO. In relation to lower value disputes, particularly those in the IPEC, he often acts without a leader.

View Privacy Notice

Recent & Notable Cases

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...

TP-Link v Huawei [2026] EWHC 179 (Pat)

Edward acted for Huawei in this dispute on interim licence terms. The dispute is notable for being the first occasion on which two companies consensually sought determination of interim licence terms by the English Court...

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)

Getty Images (US), Inc. and others v Stability Al Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)

Following trial in June 2025 the High Court's judgment has now been handed down in the Getty Images v Stability Ai litigation, neutral citation [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch). The case has been described as 'the first major copyr...

Thom Browne Inc & Anr v Adidas AG [2025] EWCA Civ 1340

On 23 October 2025, the Court of Appeal (Peter Jackson, Arnold and Falk LJJ) handed down judgment in adidas AG v Thom Browne Inc [2025] EWCA Civ 1340. The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision of Mrs Justice...

Motorola Mobility v Ericsson [2025] EWHC 539 (Pat)

As part of the global FRAND dispute between Ericsson and Lenovo (and Lenovo’s subsidiary Motorola) the High Court dealt with the question of construction of a past licence between Ericsson and Motorola as a preliminary i...

Thom Browne v Adidas AG [2024] EWHC 2990 (Ch)

Three Stripes vs Four Stripes: Adidas trade marks invalid / not infringed by Thom Browne New York couturier Thom Browne has emerged victorious in a heavyweight trade mark dispute with German sportswear giant Adidas....

Sycurio Limited v PCI-PAL Plc and another [2024] EWCA Civ 606

The Claimant appealed the decision of Bacon J against the finding that its patent was invalid for obviousness over the prior art and, in any event, would not have been infringed on a normal construction or under the doct...

Supponor Limited v AIM Sport Development AG [2024] EWCA Civ 396

This appeal saw Supponor seeking to overturn a judgment of Meade J which found AIM Sport’s patent EP (UK) 3 295 663 B1 to be valid and infringed by Supponor’s virtual overlay advertising technology. Supponor appealed on...

Lidl v Tesco [2024] EWCA Civ 262

The Court of Appeal has just handed down its much anticipated judgment in Lidl v Tesco. This was an appeal from the decisions of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch) (liability) and [2023] EWHC 1517 (Ch) (fo...

The Court of Appeal has just handed down its much anticipated judgment in Lidl v Tesco. This was an appeal from the decisions of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in [2023] EWHC 873 (Ch) (liability) and [2023] EWHC 1517 (Ch) (form of order), concerning the use by Tesco of the blue and yellow Clubcard sign and Lidl’s earlier rights in the Lidl logo. At first instance, Lidl succeeded in its claim for trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement, however several of its Wordless Mark Registrations were invalidated on the ground of bad faith. The Judge also held that Lidl should be granted an injunction to restrain copyright infringement in any event.

The appeal was heard by Lewison, Arnold and Birss LLJ, and focused primarily on Lidl’s contention that the Clubcard signs conveyed the message of price matching with Lidl. Arnold LJ gave the main judgment, in which he dismissed Tesco’s appeal against the findings of trade mark infringement and dismissed Lidl’s appeal against the Judge’s finding of bad faith. The Court allowed Tesco’s appeal on the issue of copyright infringement. Birss LJ gave a short judgment in which he adopted a different analysis on detriment for the purposes of s.10(3), and in particular reinforced the proposition that a case of infringement for detriment to distinctive character cannot be made out solely on the basis of a “pure dilution” argument.

The judgment contains a useful summary of the applicable law in relation to all causes of action. Further, Arnold LJ engaged in a detailed consideration of the role and proper assessment of different types of evidence in trade mark and passing off cases. The judgment raised several interesting points:

surveys carried out prior to litigation and for non-litigious purposes can be relied on without the permission of the court and even if they are not statistically significant;
a judge is entitled to rely on evidence given by real consumers insofar as they assist the court in ascertaining the perception of the average consumer;
the judge is entitled to rely on evidence the admissibility of which is not objected to by the other side;
it is reasonable to infer, in the absence of an alternative explanation, that a price-matching perception was due to the similarity of the respective signs, despite this not being expressly stated by the evidence;
Arnold LJ agreed with the proposition that innocent adoption of the sign complained of is not, in and of itself, sufficient for a finding of due cause – something more is needed;
it was confirmed that, where objective circumstances give rise to a prima facie case of bad faith, the evidential burden shifts to the applicant to explain its intentions at the time of making the application. This is a legitimate approach regardless of the length of time passed since the application was made; and
the case of Ladbroke v William Hill was held not to be relevant to the question of whether a derivative work is original over an antecedent work.

Lastly, Lewison LJ expressed his view that there cannot be a finding of due cause under s.10(3) where the judge finds that the defendant’s sign took unfair advantage of a registered trade mark. However, the issue thus remains to be clarified by the courts at a later date.

Finally, the Court emphasised the importance of restricting appeals to a review of first instance decisions.

Benet Brandreth KC and Edward Cronan appeared for Lidl, instructed by Bird & Bird. Iain Purvis KC and Hugo Cuddigan KC appeared for Tesco, instructed by Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP.

[2024] EWCA Civ 262

Edward Cronan

Recent & Notable Cases

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

TP-Link v Huawei [2026] EWHC 179 (Pat)

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

Getty Images (US), Inc. and others v Stability Al Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch)

Thom Browne Inc & Anr v Adidas AG [2025] EWCA Civ 1340

Motorola Mobility v Ericsson [2025] EWHC 539 (Pat)

Thom Browne v Adidas AG [2024] EWHC 2990 (Ch)

Sycurio Limited v PCI-PAL Plc and another [2024] EWCA Civ 606

Supponor Limited v AIM Sport Development AG [2024] EWCA Civ 396

Lidl v Tesco [2024] EWCA Civ 262

NOCO v Shenzhen Carku [2023] EWCA Civ 1502

Sycurio v PCI-Pal [2023] EWHC 2361 (Pat)

Shenzhen Carku v NOCO [2022] EWHC 2034 (Pat)

CommScope v SOLiD Technologies [2022] EWHC 769 (Pat)

Philip Morris Products SA & anr v RAI Strategic Holdings [2021] EWHC 537 (Pat) & anr

What the Directories say