Chambers & Partners has detected the use of an ad blocker.
We make use of tailor-made ads to enhance your experience of our website.
Please 'whitelist' http://www.chambersandpartners.com.
Close
UK Guide
Individual Profile

Cameron Marshall

Carpmaels & Ransford LLP - London

Cameron Marshall - Carpmaels & Ransford LLP
  • One Southampton Row
  • London, Greater London, UK
  • WC1B 5HA

Profile submitted by Cameron Marshall

Practice Areas

Cameron focuses exclusively on the biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields, with a large EPO opposition practice, and he receives regular praise in the main independent guides to the legal profession. Cameron has over 20 years of experience of inter partes proceedings at the EPO, both defending and attacking, and he is one of only a handful of attorneys to have represented a patentee in an EPO opposition (and subsequent appeal) involving more than 15 opponents. Although most of this work has been in the biotechnology field (including defence of the ground-breaking “Southern” array patents held by Oxford Gene Technology) his experience in EPO oppositions means that he has often been engaged to defend patents which provide crucial protection for blockbuster pharmaceuticals and biologics, including patents on their formulations, salts and dosing regimens. This has been both as lead counsel at the EPO but also in a support role for national litigations. His opposition cases run alongside an extensive prosecution practice, and these two lines of work often overlap, with strategic prosecution and parent/divisional strategies being a regular part of his workload. He is often engaged to advise clients at an early stage in situations where future patent fights with competitors are inevitable. Beyond the UK and the EPO Cameron has worked on re-examinations, interferences and arbitrations in the USA, and has co-ordinated parallel invalidity proceedings involving more than a dozen jurisdictions across six continents. He was also among the first to exploit the commercial value of the ECJ’s decision on supplementary protection certificates in Biogen vs. SmithKline Beecham.