IPEC (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court)

8 April 2017

 The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC") is a specialist list within the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice that hears all kinds of intellectual property cases. It hears cases at two levels:
  • claims that can be tried in no more than two days where the amount sought by way of damages or accountable profits is £500,000 or less are allocated to a list known as "the multitrack"; and
  • IP claims other than those involving patents, registered designs, registered Community designs, semiconductor topographies and plant varieties where the amount sought is £10,000 or less are allocated to a list known as "the small claims track."
Multitrack cases are managed and, if necessary, tried by circuit judges with experience of intellectual property litigation known as "enterprise judges". Small claims are managed and tried by district judges. 

Patents, registered design, registered Community design, semiconductor topography and plant variety cases where the amount claimed exceeds £500,000 or that cannot be tried in two days or less proceed in the Patents Court. All other IP cases proceed elsewhere in the Chancery Division or the County Court.

Multitrack cases in IPEC are managed very tightly by the court. Disputed issues are identified at the first case management meeting and evidence and disclosure are restricted to whatever may be necessary to determine those issues. There is a strict timetable and costs at each stage of the proceeding are capped. Unless the court orders otherwise, no more than £50,000 may be recovered from the unsuccessful party upon the determination of liability and £25,000 upon the taking of an account or an inquiry.

Strict rules of evidence and procedure are relaxed in the small claims track to assist litigants in person as far as possible. Oral proceedings are kept to a minimum with a single hearing to determine whether liability and the amount payable by way of damages or accountable profits. Directions are given in writing wherever possible and some cases are resolved entirely on the papers. District judges can award final but not interim injunctions. The costs that may be recovered from an unsuccessful party are limited to a few hundred pounds, mainly issue fees and reimbursement of expenses and lost earnings and a nominal contribution to legal fees where an injunction is sought.

IPEC was established by art 26 (b) (i) of the Civil The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.7) Rules 2013 to replace the Patents County Court which had been abolished by art 3 of The Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Commencement No. 3) Order 2013 implementing s.17 (5) and paragraph 30 (3) of Schedule 9 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. S.287 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 had enabled the Lord Chancellor to designate any county court as a Patents County Court. The first county court to be so designated was the Wood Green County Court. Some years later, the Wood Green County Court ceased to be a Patents County Court and the Central London County Court was designated as a Patents County Court in its place.

Further Reading

Contact

Popular posts from this blog

Copyright: Primary Infirngement - Copying

The right to copy a copyright work is restricted to the copyright owner by s.2 (1) and s.16 (1) (a) of the  Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 . The restriction applies to every description of copyright work though different provisions apply to different types of work (s.17 (1)). This right to restrict copying is referred to as the right of reproduction in art 9 of the Bern Convention and art 2 of the "Copyright in the Information Society" or  Copyright and Related Rights Directive  (Directive 2001/29). Literary Musical, Dramatic or Artistic Works Copying in relation to an artistic, dramatic, literary or musical work  work means reproducing the work in any material form including storing the work in any medium by electronic means. In the case of an artistic work this includes making a copy in 3 dimensions of a 2 dimensional work and the making of a copy in 3 dimensions of a 3 dimensional work. Films and Broadcasts S.17 (4) of the 1988 Act as amended  includes within the
Read more

Patents - Gilead Sciences Inc v NuCana Plc

Image
  Jane Lamber t Patents Court  (Mr Justice Meade) G ilead Sciences Inc and another NuCana PLC  [2023] EWHC 611 (Pat) (21 March 2023) This was an action by Gilead Sciences Inc. and its British subsidiary Gilead Sciences Ltd ("Gilead") for revocation of two European Patents (UK) that had been granted to NuCana Plc ("NoCana"), namely  EP 2 955 190 B1 (“EP190”)  and   EP 3 904 365 B1 (“EP365”) .  NuCana complained that Gilead's product  sofosbuvir  infringed its patents. Mr Justice Meade, who tried the action, could see no real defence to the counterclaim if the claims of the patents were valid. Grounds of Revocation Gilead sought revocation of the patents on the following grounds: Added matter in that the  Markush group definitions of the claims  of the patents are not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application; Lack of plausibility in that the Patents do not plausibly disclose any technical contribution common to substantially all the claimed
Read more

Copyright in Photographs: Temple Island Collections and Creation Records

Image
In our very first NIPC newsletter which we published in June 1997 I wrote a case note on Mr. Justice Lloyd's decision in  Creation Records Ltd. and Others v News Group Newspapers Ltd   [1997] EMLR 444, [1997] EWHC Ch 370, (1997) 16 Tr LR 544. In that case Mr. Noel Gallagher of Oasis and others applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain The Sun from offering for sale and selling a poster of Oasis that featured a photo of an elaborate set that included a white Rolls Royce in a country club swimming pool. The Sun's photograph was very similar to the photograph that appeared on an Oasis album cover. The similarity arose because The Sun's photographer shot the same scene at roughly the same time and from the same angle as Mr. Gallagher's photographer but he did not reproduce any part of Oasis's print or negative. The learned judge held that the plaintiffs had no arguable case for infringement of copyright though he accepted that they had an arguable case for br
Read more