Showing posts from April, 2013

Intellectual Property Litigation - the Funding Options

Until the 31 March 2013 it was possible to enter a conditional fee agreement ( "CFA" ) whereby the other side would pay any success fee. Similarly, it was possible to look to the other side to pay an after-the-event  ( "ATE" ) insurance premium.   In his  Final Report  S ir Rupert Jackson  recommended that success fees and ATE insurance premiums should cease to be recoverable from unsuccessful opponents in civil litigation as those costs were "the major contributor to disproportionate costs in civil litigation in England and Wales".. S.44 (4)  and s.46 (1)  of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 which came into effect on 1 April 2013 carried those recommendations into effect.  It is, of course, still possible to enter a CFA and take out ATE insurance but any success fee or insurance premium has to be paid by the successful party out of any damages that the successful party may receive. Sir Rupert also recomme

The IPO's New Improved Mediation Service - will it make a difference?

In "The End of Mediation?"  which I posted on 4 June 2012 I wrote that the IPO was thinking of discontinuing its mediation service because it had conducted only 13 mediations in the previous 5 years and only one in the last year.  That was not because the IPO service was expensive or because it was rubbish. I had used it in 2009 and was very satisfied (see "Practice: Mediation in the IPO" 2 Oct 2009). Nor did it appear that mediation work was going elsewhere. In my article I ventured some suggestions as to why mediation of intellectual property disputes seemed to be going out of style. At least in England and Wales. "I think there are a number of explanations for the low take up of the IPO's mediation service. First, commercial and litigation solicitors tell me that they are getting far less intellectual property work nowadays. Getting rid of employees and getting out of commitments such as shareholders; agreements and partnerships seem to be the m

Make or Mend: Schütz v Werit reaches the Supreme Court

Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd   [2013] UKSC 16 Supreme Court Lords Neuberger, Walker, Mance and Kerr and Lady Hale) This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal in  Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 303, [2011] Bus LR 1510, [2011] FSR 19 which I had blogged in "Patents: Schütz (UK) Ltd v Werit (UK) Ltd "  on 2 April 2011. The point in this appeal was whether cross-bottling - the practice of replacing the a 1,000 litre bottle  that had been supplied by Schütz (U.K.) Limited, the exclusive licensee of a patent for a type of intermediate bulk carrier ( "IBC" ) like the one pictured above, with one supplied by a third party such as Werit - amounted to making for the purpose of s.60 (1) (a) of the Patents Act 1977 .  In the Patents Court, Mr. Justice Floyd held that it did not (see  Schutz (UK) Ltd v Werit UK Ltd and Another   [2010] EWHC 660 (Pat), [2010] Bus LR 1244, [2010] FSR 22). The Court of App