NIPC Law

The Rolls Building Author Judicial Office Licence CC BY-SA 4. 0   Source Wikimedia Commons Jane Lambert Last week I chaired 4 of the 5 daily sessions of Informa's Cambridge IP "Winter School"  and delivered 3 of the talks. The title of the last of those talks (which was also the last talk of the Winter School) was IP Litigation in England and Wale s. I offered that talk because not all the attendees in previous years' summer schools had been legally qualified and many of those who were so qualified were new to IP.  It seemed to me that there was not much point in discussing the complexities of IP litigation without a grounding in the basics. IP litigation differs from other types of civil litigation in many ways.  It has its own rules and practice direction.  Much IP business is conducted in specialist courts and all of the rest are in a specialist list in the Chancery Division.  IP litigation can be particularly expensive which is why threats to br...

CPR 63.20 (2)  requires those bringing claims in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ( "IPEC" ) including the small claims track to state whether they have complied with paragraph 7.1(1) and Annex A (paragraph 2) of the Practice Direction (Pre-Action Conduct). If they don't the defendant has an extra 28 days in which to file his or her defence under CPR 63.22 (3).  But if you actually turn to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct  you will find that the old paragraph 7 and Annex A aren't there any more. That is because the practice direction was updated on 29 April 2015. In their place, paragraph 6 provides: "Steps before issuing a claim at court 6. Where there is a relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should comply with that protocol before commencing proceedings. Where there is no relevant pre-action protocol, the parties should exchange correspondence and information to comply with the objectives in paragraph 3, bearing in mind that com...

For several months the "Patents Court Guide" link on the Justice Ministry website led not to a guide to the  practice of the Patents Court but to a guide to the new practice in the Patents County Court. Between the 23 April 1999 and the 30 Sept 2010 that would not have mattered because the rules and practice directions for the Patents Court and the Patents County Court were essentially the same. Since the 1 Oct 2010 the practices of the Patents Court and Patents County Court have diverged once more and there is now a small claims track in the Patents County Court where the claim for pecuniary relief (damages or profits) is less than £5,000. For more information on those developments, read "The New County Court Rules" 31 Oct 2010 and "Patents County Court - The New Small Claims Track Rules" 30 Sept 2012. We now have a plethora of new practice guides: The Patents Court Guide  The Patents County Court Guide , and Guide to the Patents County Court Smal...

New From 1 Oct 2012 there will be a new small claims track in the Patents County Court, a reform recommended by Hargreaves, Jackson and Gowers. I have written written about the rules governing actions in this new jurisdiction in  Patents County Court - the New Small Claims Track Rules 20 Sept 2012. Possible Correlation between the Cost of Enforcement and the Number of British Patent Applications In November 2003 the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee published the report The Enforcement of Patent Rights . On page 50 of the report the Committee compared the cost of patent infringement litigation in the UK, USA, France, Germany and the Netherlands. It found that the costs in Patents Court were around £1 million. Even in the Patents County Court ( “PCC” ) they were between £150,000 and £250,000. By contrast, the costs in France were between €30,000 and €50,000, those in Germany between €25,000 and €50,000 depending on scale, and those in the Netherlands €10,000 to €20,...