Guy Burkill KC

Called to the bar 1981 Took silk 2002 Silk

Practice Area

Guy Burkill is particularly active in patent cases involving smartphones, computer hardware and software, electronics, and mechanical engineering.  He also maintains a more diverse practice in copyright, trade secrets (in particular misuse by ex-employees), and other IP.

He engages effectively with expert witnesses, and relishes the challenges of understanding, analysing and explaining complex technology.  His expertise is supported by a strong technical foundation (a first in engineering and an instinctive feel for how things work), coupled with extensive legal knowledge (as a co-editor of Terrell, the patent practitioners’ textbook).

Major telecoms cases involving multiple aspects of 2G/3G/4G mobile phone technology include Qualcomm v Nokia, HTC v Apple, HTC v Nokia, Samsung v Apple, and Optis v Apple.

He has also acted for many leading multinational companies in the engineering, chemical, pharmaceutical, aviation, and other industries. Other memorable cases include Dyson v Hoover; Hoechst Celanese v BP (commodity chemical manufacture: account of profits); Lubrizol v Exxon (oil additives); Schlumberger v EMGS (non-obvious marriage of separate skills).

Recent non-patent work includes cases involving copyright in security system firmware, copyright in architect’s plans, misuse of confidential information taken by ex-employees (acting variously for employers and for employees), and trade mark use on rebranded parallel imported goods (acting variously for trade mark owners and for alleged infringers).

Publications

Co-editor of Terrell on the Law of Patents (15th edition, 2000; 16th edition, 2006; 17th edition, 2011).

Education

  • Entrance scholarship to Winchester College 1970.
  • Entrance scholarship to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 1975.
  • First Class Honours MA degree in Engineering (Electrical option) from Cambridge University 1978.

Legal Directory Comments

“Guy Burkill KC is highlighted for his excellent advice and his strong courtroom presentation. He is recognised for his expertise in mechanical and electronics patent disputes, but possesses additional knowledge of areas including copyright law. He continues to be instructed by some of the most significant patentees in the telecommunications industry.  ‘He is all over the detail and gets it all right’.” – CHAMBERS UK, 2024

“Guy is actually the one who truly understands telecoms patents. His soft-speaking style hides powerful cross-examination skills that sneak up on witnesses.” “He is so technically-minded even compared with other KCs; he really stands out and comes up with good arguments and brings creative angles.” – CHAMBERS UK, 2022

“He is just so creative; he knows where to stretch the law and reads the court fantastically well.”

“If you need someone to work on very complex technology at the highest level it has to be Guy.”– CHAMBERS UK, 2018

“Celebrated for his white-hot intellect and superior instincts which have been honed by three decades of handling IP litigation at the highest levels” – CHAMBERS UK, 2016

“Frighteningly clever, and the automatic top pick for impossibly technical patents”. – Legal 500, 2016

“One of the finest legal minds in the country with regard to the law on patents, who has played a prominent role in litigating the ‘Smartphone Wars’ of recent years. Many sources express admiration for his knowledge of computers and electrical engineering. ‘Spectacular in front of the judge, he has absolute control over the courtroom’. ‘He’s very user-friendly and has a superb engineering brain that allows him to give practical advice.’”CHAMBERS UK, 2015

“Extraordinarily clever; very gifted at guiding the judges through the most complex of cases”. – Legal 500, 2015

“On an electronics case, he’s a complete master of the technology.” “He’s absolutely terrific on his feet.” – Chambers UK, 2014

‘gets to grips with the most difficult technical subject matter known to man’ – Legal 500, 2013

“The ‘unbelievably clever, extremely funny and technically superb’ Guy Burkill KC is a favourite for patent cases including complex technology, particularly in the electronics field”. – Chambers UK, 2010

“Not only interested in technology but can explain it in terms that laymen can understand”. – Chambers UK, 2007

Principal Cases

House of Lords and Court of Appeal cases including:

  • Sevcon v. Lucas (House of Lords case on limitation periods in patent actions)
  • Asahi’s patent (House of Lords case on enabling disclosures)
  • Allen & Hanburys Limited v. Generics (House of Lords case on licences of right; effect of European law on Comptroller’s discretion to impose terms)
  • SKF (cimetidine) and American Cyanamid (fenbufen) (licences of right; royalty rates and terms)
  • Procter & Gamble v. Peaudouce and Mölynlycke v. Procter & Gamble (both disposable nappies; ambiguity; evidence of obviousness)
  • Pavel v. Sony (the “Walkman” case, first case in Patents County Court)
  • Hallen v. Brabantia (corkscrews; technical versus commercial obviousness)
  • Van der Lely v. Rustons (harrows)
  • Step v. Emson (atomisers; claim construction – claim integers cannot be entirely ignored)
  • Glaverbel v. British Coal (furnace repair; principles of construction of patent claims)
  • Hoechst Celanese v. BP (two actions concerning acetic acid purification, account of profits)
  • Lubrizol v. Exxon (oil additives: prior use, obviousness, ambiguity, “section 64 defence”)
  • Pioneer v. Warner (compact discs; product-by-process claims)
  • Discovision v. Disctronics (compact disc mastering)
  • Buehler v. Chronos Richardson (no estoppel arising from previous EPO opposition decisions)
  • Asahi v. Macopharma (blood transfusion apparatus; obviousness)
  • Amersham Pharmacia v. Amicon (chromatography apparatus; construction of claims)
  • Thermos v. Aladdin (registered designs; function of appeal court)
  • Dyson v. Hoover (cyclonic vacuum cleaners; post-expiry injunction)
  • Agilent v. Waters (chromatography pumps: claim construction and estoppel)
  • Glaxo v. Dowelhurst (parallel imports: “placing on the market” in EU)
  • Smith International v. SPS (drill string equipment: second tier appeals from Patent Office)
  • RIM v. Inpro (“BlackBerry” email system; anticipation and obviousness)
  • Halliburton v. Smith (computer-aided design of oil drill bits; insufficiency)
  • Schlumberger v EMGS (subsea electromagnetic surveying for hydrocarbons)
  • Apple v. HTC (patentability of computer software / computer implemented inventions)
  • Nokia v. HTC (stay of first instance injunction pending appeal)
  • Samsung v. Apple (parallel proceedings in Court of Appeal and central limitation at EPO)
  • Flynn Pharma v DrugsRUs (rebranding of products imported from EU)
  • Optis v Apple (essentiality, Agrevo obviousness)

Appeared for the patentee before the ECJ (European Court of Justice) sitting as the full court with eleven judges in Thetford v. Fiamma (harmonisation of patent law within the EEC).

Numerous High Court and Patents Court matters. Those first instance cases which went no further but which he remembers with particular affection include:

  • IBM v. Phoenix (passing off rebuilt memory cards, “Eurodefences”)
  • Philips v. Princo (encoding of position information on otherwise blank recordable CDs)
  • Sega v. Codemasters (protection systems in video game consoles to enforce purported licensing obligations)
  • Sweeney v. MacMillan (revived copyright in James Joyce’s novel “Ulysses”: alleged passing off of new edition– and asking just what is a “new edition”?)
  • Texas Instruments v. Hyundai (integrated circuit component layout)
  • Thomson v. Pace (DVD and MPEG-2 video encoding techniques)
  • Qualcomm v. Nokia (power control in mobile phone systems)

Appearances before the EPO (European Patent Office) and Technical Boards of Appeal in Munich in cases involving among other things tachometers, aspartame crystallisation, oil wellheads, liquefied air distillation, machine tool cutting inserts, refractory articles, 3-D displays, predictive text keyboards, television audience measurement systems, subsea electromagnetic surveying, and banknote security markings.

Extra-Legal Experience

  • During his engineering degree course, Guy Burkill spent four months in industry (involved in the design, assembly, testing and repair of electronic remote signalling and control apparatus with Westinghouse).
  • He also designed and built his own microcomputers from scratch (with associated bootstrap firmware and operating software) in the mid/late 1970s before their widespread commercial availability, and later programmed his entries for the first European Microcomputer Chess Championship (1978) and first World Microcomputer Chess Championship (1980).
  •  He has written software in a variety of computer languages including 6502 and 808x machine code and assembly language, Fortran, Basic, Pascal, and C, and nowadays occasionally programs in C# on the Visual Studio.net platform when time permits.

Leisure Interests

Leisure interests include opera, the violin (he performs regularly with the London Phoenix Orchestra (probably London’s leading amateur orchestra), Regents Opera, and other symphonic and operatic ensembles), battling with HS2, and trying to mend things.

Privacy Notice

Guy Burkill’s privacy notice can be found here.

Chambers & Partners IT : ‘Guy Burkill KC is particularly admired for his technical grasp of complex technology matters, evidenced by his recent engagement to act in major smartphone and telecoms cases. He is an expert in the IP aspects of software and hardware disputes. Burkill advises a number of household-name global technology manufacturers.’

“Guy is a powerhouse when it comes to patent litigation, computer science or any hi-tech areas. He has a wonderful brain, which allows him to expertly map out the strategy. He is a joy to work with.”

Chambers & Partners, 2025 IT

Chambers & Partners IP: ‘Guy Burkill KC is highlighted for his excellent advice and his strong courtroom presentation. He is recognised for his expertise in mechanical and electronics patent disputes, but possesses additional knowledge of areas including copyright law. He continues to be instructed by some of the most significant patentees in the telecommunications industry.’

“Guy is very hands-on and has really good knowledge in the software sector.”

Chambers & Partners, 2025 IP

“Guy is actually the one who truly understands telecoms patents. His soft-speaking style hides powerful cross-examination skills that sneak up on witnesses.” “He is so technically-minded even compared with other KCs; he really stands out and comes up with good arguments and brings creative angles.”

CHAMBERS UK, 2022
More

‘If you need someone to work on very complex technology at the highest level it has to be Guy.’

Chambers UK, 2018

“Frighteningly clever, and the automatic top pick for impossibly technical patents”.

LEGAL 500, 2016

“Celebrated for his white-hot intellect and superior instincts which have been honed by three decades of handling IP litigation at the highest levels”

Chambers UK, 2016

“One of the finest legal minds in the country with regard to the law on patents, who has played a prominent role in litigating the ‘Smartphone Wars’ of recent years. Many sources express admiration for his knowledge of computers and electrical engineering.   ‘Spectacular in front of the judge, he has absolute control over the courtroom.’  ‘He’s very user-friendly and has a superb engineering brain that allows him to give practical advice.’”

Chambers UK, 2015

‘Extraordinarily clever; very gifted at guiding the judges through the most complex of cases’

Legal 500, 2015

‘Gets to grips with the most difficult technical subject matter known to man’

Legal 500, 2013

“The ‘unbelievably clever, extremely funny and technically superb’ Guy Burkill KC is a favourite for patent cases including complex technology, particularly in the electronics field. … An expert on the technological aspects of a case, Guy Burkill KC is ‘fiercely intelligent and someone you want when you’re dealing with highly complex matters’. He is seen as something of an electronics guru.”

Chambers UK, 2010