Ravi S. Mehta is a practising barrister at Blackstone Chambers, London specialising in EU, competition, public law and human rights, employment, sport and media law and commercial litigation. Ravi was called to the New York Bar in 2010. He obtained an LLB in English and French Law (London) and a Master 1 en Droit français et anglais (Paris I Pantheon-Sorbonne) on a joint degree programme, before spending a year at NYU as a Fulbright Scholar, obtaining an LLM in International Legal Studies. While at NYU, he worked as a Research Associate to Professor J.H.H. Weiler, and he has worked as a stagiaire (judicial assistant) in the General Court as well as the Court of Justice of the European Union.
282
Arcadia v Visa revisited: the Court of Appeal takes a strict approach to limitation* Competition damages claims can be notoriously complex. According to the Court of Appeal, however, that is no reason to free them from the ordinary English rules of limitation – however strict those rules (...)
244
Of Megabytes and Men: the private use exception under the judicial lens and lessons for state aid claims* On 19 June 2015, the High Court allowed a claim for judicial review against the decision to introduce a narrow ‘private copying’ exception to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (...)
263
“It’s too late baby, now it’s too late”: limitation, competition claims and knowledge* How much knowledge does a potential claimant need before time begins to run against a competition claim against a party alleged to have breached competition law? This was the key question addressed by Mr (...)
209
Avoiding the clinch: judicial respect for the rules inherent to sport* In a recent bout in the High Court, the specificity of sporting disputes once again came to the fore. In Bruce Baker v British Boxing Board of Control [2014] EWHC 2074 (QB), 25 June 2014, Sir David Eady was faced with the (...)
196
“What’s in a Commission Decision?” and other lessons for national courts* In a decision of 13 February 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) added a little gloss to an otherwise well-trodden path in relation to the binding aspects of a Commission Decision. For instance, (...)
383
To fight or not to fight: pharmaceutical patent settlements* On 19 April 2013, the OFT announced that it had issued a Statement of Objections following its investigation into patent litigation settlement agreements (PLSAs) in the pharmaceutical sector. The underlying factual complaint (...)
128
Anyone for another round? The Court of Appeal’s nuanced approach to the duty of “sincere cooperation”.* The duty of “sincere cooperation” set out in Article 4(3) TEU requires Member States to take appropriate measures to “ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or (...)
169
“Imprecise legal concepts” are no excuse* The second chapter of the Microsoft saga unfolded on 27 June 2012, when the General Court largely upheld the €899 million periodic penalty payment imposed on Microsoft for failing to share adequate interoperability information with its competitors. (...)
