Mile Copeland

Miles Copeland

Called to the bar 2004 Junior

Practice Area

Miles was Chambers and Partners IP/IT Junior of the Year 2021. He practices in all aspects of intellectual property law, including patents, SPCs, trade marks, passing off, copyright, registered designs, design right and confidential information.

Recent Cases

  • Warner-Lambert v Actavis and Mylan [2018] Supreme Court; [2015] EWCA Civ 1006, [2015] EWHC 72 (Pat), [2015] EWHC 223 (Pat), [2015] EWHC 249 (Pat), [2015] EWHC 2548 (Pat), [2015] EWHC 3370 (Pat) – representing Warner-Lambert in this case about the infringement of second medical use claims and the issue of invalidity due to lack of plausibility
  • Eli Lilly v Janssen Biotech Inc [2018] – representing Lilly in this case about antibodies for auto-immune disorders
  • Align Technology Inc v ClearCorrect Holdings Inc [2018] – representing ClearCorrect in this patent case about dental retainers
  • Edwards v Boston [2017] EWHC 405 (Pat) – represented Edwards in this claim about the validity and infringement of patents relating to transcatheter heart valves
  • Glaxosmithkline v Wyeth [2017] – represented GSK in this account of profits about a meningitis vaccine
  • Eli Lilly v Easai [2017] – represented Lilly in this claim relating to the validity of a patent relating to BACE inhibitors
  • Merck v Shionogi [2016] EWHC 2989 (Pat) – represented Shionogi in this case about the validity of a patent covering a class of HIV Integrase inhibitors
  • FKB v AbbVie [2016] EWHC 2204 (Pat) – represented FKB on this dispute as to the jurisdiction to bring an “Arrow” declaration
  • Rhodia v Molycorp [2016] EWHC 1722 (Pat) – represented Rhodia in this claim for infringement of a patent relating to ceric oxides
  • Generics UK v VIIV healthcare [2016] – represented Viiv in this dispute about a patent and SPC relating to HIV combination therapy
  • Medical Research Council v Celltech R & D [2015] – represented Celltech in this claim for patent royalties
  • Nokia v HTC [2013] EWHC 3247 (Pat), [2013] EWHC 3778 (Pat), [2013] EWHC 2768 (Ch) – represented Nokia in its successful defence of the validity of its patent and counterclaim for infringement
  • Resolution Chemicals Limited v H.Lundbeck A/S [2013] EWHC 739 (Pat), [2013] EWHC 3160 (Pat), [2013] EWCA Civ 924, [2013] EWCA Civ 1515 – represented Lundbeck in its applications to strike out Resolution’s claim on the basis of estoppel and for the Judge to recuse himself
  • Hospira v Novartis [2013] EWHC 516 (Pat), [2013] EWCA Civ 1663 – represented Novartis in its defence of a claim for revocation of its dosage regimen patent
  • HTC v Gemalto [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat) – represented Gemalto in its claim for patent infringement by HTC’s smartphones
  • Allergan Botox Limited v Ipsen Biopharm [2013] – represented Allergan in its claims for infringement of its patents on the use of botulinum toxin for treating urinary incontinence
  • Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences [2013] RPC 22, [2012] EWCA Civ 1185 – represented Lilly in the Court of Appeal following remission from the Supreme Court in relation to HGS’s patent relating to Neutrokine-α antibodies
  • Fabio Perini v LPC and PCMC [2012] EWHC 1393 (Pat) – represented Perini at the damages inquiry following a successful patent infringement action
  • Danisco v Novozymes [2011] EWHC 3288 (Pat), [2012] EWHC 696 (Pat), [2012] EWHC 1641 (Pat), [2013] EWHC 155 (Pat) – represented Novozymes throughout this action including in resisting Danisco’s application to stay the UK trial pending a hearing before the EPO and to use UK disclosure in foreign jurisdictions
  • Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v AstraZeneca [2011] EWHC 1831 (Pat) – represented AstraZeneca in an action relating to infringement and revocation of AZ’s esomeprazole patent
  • Welland Medical Ltd v Philip Hadley [2011] EWHC 1994 (Pat) – represented Mr Hadley as respondent to an appeal in entitlement proceedings relating to an ostomy bag invention
  • Welland Medical Ltd v Philip Hadley [2011] O/133/11 – represented Mr Hadley as respondent to entitlement proceedings relating to an ostomy bag invention
  • Mölnlycke Health Care AB v Brightwake Limited [2011] EWHC 376 (Pat), EWHC 140 (Pat) – infringement and revocation of Mölnlycke’s wound dressing patent
  • Siemens AG v Seagate Technology [2010] NICh 12- infringement and revocation of Siemens’ synthetic antiferromagnet hard disk read head patent in Belfast
  • Medeva’s SPC Applications [2010] RPC 27 and [2010] RPC 20 – Court of Appeal and High Court
  • CSL/ University of Queensland’s SPC Applications [2010] – reference to the ECJ
  • Premium Aircraft Interiors Group Ltd [2010] BLO/186/10 – Patent Office hearing to obtain grant of patent
  • Nokia v IPCom [2010] – revocation of IPCom’s mobile telecommunications patents, IPCom submitted to the revocation shortly before trial
  • Fabio Perini SpA v LPC and PCMC [2010] All ER (D) 138 (May) and [2009] EWHC 1929 (Pat) – mechanical patent infringement and validity, Court of Appeal and High Court
  • Edwards v Cook [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat) – patent revocation, surgical heart valves
  • Dr Reddy’s Laboratories v Eli Lilly [2009] EWCA Civ 1362, [2010] RPC 9 and [2008] EWHC 2345 (Pat) – olanzapine, selection inventions
  • Eli Lilly & Co Ltd v Neolab Ltd [2008] FSR 25 – disclosure of names and addresses of customers
  • Nokia v InterDigital [2008] – essentiality to 3G mobile telecommunication standards
  • Ericsson v Samsung [2007] – essentiality to mobile telecommunication standards
  • European Central Bank v DSS Inc. [2008] EWCA Civ 192 & [2007] EWHC 600 (Ch) – patent revocation, added matter, Court of Appeal and High Court
  • LIFFE Administration and Management v Pinkava [2007] RPC 30 and [2006] EWHC 595 (Pat) – employer/employee dispute as to ownership of inventions and confidential information Court of Appeal and High Court
  • Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd v Vetplus Ltd [2007] FSR 29, [2007] FSR 28 – interim injunction, malicious falsehood, trademark, comparative advertising, Court of Appeal and High Court
  • Novartis AG v Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd [2006] EWHC 2506 (Pat) – pharmaceutical formulation patent, infringement and validity
  • Weatherford v BJ Tubular Services [2006] EWHC – mechanical patent, infringement and validity


  • Pupillage completed at 3 New Square covering all areas of intellectual property law with Colin Birss, Thomas Mitcheson, Denise McFarland and Justin Turner as pupil masters.
  • Bar Vocational Course at Inns of Court School of Law (2003-2004).
  • CPE at City University (2002-2003).
  • Natural Sciences specialising in Neuroscience at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (1999-2002).
  • Lord Denning, Lord Haldane, Hardwicke and Wolfson Scholar of Lincoln’s Inn.

Professional Association Memberships

Intellectual Property Bar Association, IPSoc, Chancery Bar Association

Privacy Notice

Miles Copleland’s privacy notice can be found here.

“Miles Copeland pays brilliant attention to detail. He is hard-working and pragmatic. You will want Miles on your team.”

“Miles Copeland is thorough, diligent, and good at anticipating the argument from the other side and the judge’s perspective. His written work is careful and thorough. He is good at dealing with the complexities in the issues.”

Chambers & Partners, 2024

 ‘Cool, calm, and collected, and razor-sharp, he is lovely to work with.’

Legal 500, 2023

“Miles Copeland is a great thinker and very good at strategy. He is incredibly hard-working and able to turn around comments on complex evidence quickly but without sacrificing thoroughness and detail.”


Miles is adored by his clients. The reason for this is that he brings ingenious solutions to tough problems, and also because he rolls his sleeves up with the rest of the team.

Legal 500, 2023

“Incredibly sharp in his technical understanding”;  “Absolutely delightful, and good at probing all the issues”;  “He has been great on the detail throughout the case. He is forensic with the analysis. He was strong in the face of some push-back from judges.”

Chambers & Partners 2022

“He is very analytical, meticulous and thinks of things from different points of view. He is able to spot things that others may miss, and that is of huge value.”;  “He is an incredibly intelligent man who is willing to roll up his sleeves and see himself as part of the team.”;  “Miles is very good at thinking up new arguments and is commercial in his outlook.”

Chambers & Partners 2021

“He is very responsive and always has time to discuss issues.”;  “A pleasure to work with – thoughtful and strategic.”

Chambers & Partners 2020

“He has excellent knowledge and works hard alongside solicitors – he is very user-friendly.”;  “He has an incredible grasp of highly technical cases, and brings energy and enthusiasm to his work.”

Chambers & Partners 2019

“User-friendly and highly responsive barrister noted for his excellent client service… hard-working, responsive, bright and pleasant to work with. I find him to be very thoughtful and considered.  He has a brilliant mind and that comes across in both his written submissions and oral communications.”

Chambers & Partners 2018

“He has a fierce, analytical mind and is not afraid to ask probing questions and challenge answers.”

Legal 500 2017

“…very hard-working, really enthusiastic, good on his feet and provides excellent support throughout cases.”

Chambers & Partners, 2017

“a lawyer whose technical understanding and admirable performances in court have not gone unnoticed…; his advice was excellent and his approach to working as part of the team was just right” 

Chambers & Partners, 2016

“a careful, thoughtful and meticulous barrister”

Legal 500, 2016

“fast establishing himself as one of the leading juniors for sophisticated patent trials; hard-working, very bright and very easy to work with. He really cares”

Chambers & Partners, 2015

“committed, thorough and very user-friendly”

Legal 500, 2015

“already a trusted junior who “punches above his weight”; bright and thorough, he’s client-friendly, dedicated and quickly gets to grips with complicated legal problems”

Chambers & Partners, 2014