Setting the limit on the value of claims heard in the Patents County Court

On 31 July 2009, a working group consisting of the three Patents Court judges, His Honour Judge Fysh QC and representatives of the patent bar, CIPA, ITMA and various other interest groups published a report on Proposals for Reform of the Patents County Court.

For those who are not familiar with the English legal system, there are two tiers of civil courts of first instance in England and Wales:
  • the High Court of Justice with unlimited jurisdiction throughout England and Wales; and
  • a network of local courts with jurisdiction limited by geography and subject matter known as "the county courts."
S.287 (1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 enabled the Lord Chancellor to designate any county court as a "patents county court" and to confer on it jurisdiction to hear and determined proceedings relating to patents and designs. There has only ever been one patents county court at any one time, Two courts have been designated and both of those have been in London. First, there was the Edmonton County Court, then, in 1994, the Central London County Court. As Sir Rupert Jackson observed at paragraph 5.2 of his interim report on costs, the Patents County Court had not been a success, initially because of its procedures and original location at Wood Green, and later because it offered no cost-saving or other advantage over the High Court.

In their report the working group recommended changes to the Patents County Court's procedure, limits to the costs that a successful party can recover from unsuccessful parties and a £500,000 limit to the value of claims. The procedural changes and the costs limits were introduced at the beginning of October. I blogged about them in "New Patent County Court Rules" on 31 Oct 2010.

There is now a consultation on the the limit to be set to the value of claims. That began at the end of October and will remain open until 3 Dec 2010. In a consultation paper, "Setting the Limit", HM government announced its intention of limiting the value of claims in the Patents County Court from the outset to avoid the need for lengthy and protracted transfer applications but it has not yet chosen the figure. Members of the public who want to contribute should address their submissions to

Copyright and IP Enforcement,
Room 3B49
Concept House
Cardiff Road
Newport
South Wales
NP10 8QQ
United Kingdom

E-mail: IP Enforcement
Fax: +44 (0) 1633 814922

Patents County Court Practice: Westwood v Knight 27 Nov 2010

New Patents County Court Rules 31 Oct 2010

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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