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 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

"What is meant by "Due Cause" in s.10 (3) of the Trade Marks Act? The Red Bull Case

Image
Amsterdam   Source Wikipedia According to Wikipedia  Red Bull is the most popular energy drink in the world, with 5.2 billion cans sold in 2012. Its manufacturer, Red Bull GmbH , has registered the RED BULL mark has registered those words and their accompanying logo as word and device marks in trade mark registries around the world including the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property ( "BOIP" ) . The company registered that sign with BOIP for non-alcoholic drinks in class 32 with effect from 11 July 1983. After decades of massive sales and extensive advertising nobody could argue that that mark has a reputation within the meaning of art 5 (2) of the Trade Marks Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2008   to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks OJ 8.11.2008 p 299/25).  S.10 (3) of our Trade Marks Act 1994   implements that provision. There is in the Net...
Read more

Copyright: Creation Records Ltd. v News Group

It is trite law that if two photographers take identical pictures of the same scene at the same time from the same position each of their photographs is an original work and neither infringes the copyright in the other. However, much of the skill of a photographer lies in his choice of subject and the arrangement of the scene. The question whether copyright subsists independently in such an arrangement arose in Creation Records Ltd. v News Group Newspapers Ltd . (1997) The Times 27 April.   The Facts A swimming pool at a country club was drained and various props including a white Rolls Royce motor car assembled for a photograph of a well-known group of musicians for reproduction on their album cover. Although the public was not admitted to the session certain fans of the group who happened to be there were allowed to photograph the scene before official pictures were taken. A freelance photographer who was booked into the club photographed the scene during the session. One of his pict...
Read more