header-logo header-logo

05 November 2025
Categories: Movers & Shakers , Profession
printer mail-detail

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

Charles Russell Speechlys has appointed Robert Lundie Smith as a partner in its intellectual property team in London. Joining from EIP, where he spent 13 years and was head of UK patent disputes, Robert brings extensive experience in complex patent litigation and contentious IP work. His arrival further enhances the firm’s global IP offering and complements its established strength in soft IP and brand protection.

A seasoned litigator, Robert has led high-profile patent infringement and validity disputes across multiple jurisdictions. His scientific background—holding both a PhD and MSci in chemistry—provides valuable technical insight for clients in high-tech and standards-related cases. He also maintains strong connections with corporates, attorneys and litigation funders in the UK, Europe and the US, broadening the firm’s international reach.

Stewart Hey, divisional managing partner for litigation and dispute resolution, said Robert’s appointment ‘adds an exciting new string to our bow’ and supports the firm’s ambition to expand its global IP capabilities. Mary Bagnall, head of intellectual property, added that his ‘substantial experience in complex patent and technology disputes’ strengthens the firm’s ‘full-service offering for clients both here in the UK and internationally’.

Robert said he was ‘extremely thankful for the opportunity to lead the creation and development of the patent litigation practice’, adding that the coming years ‘will be a very interesting time for patent litigation’. He looks forward to collaborating with colleagues ‘across multiple geographies and key financial centres’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll