May 2011
In the UK there are two courts which specifically hear intellectual property cases.
One of these is the Patents County Court (PCC – soon to be re-named the “Intellectual Property County Court”). The intended purpose of the PCC was as a forum for less valuable and complex cases. However, until recently, its burdensome procedural rules, designed for higher courts, have severely limited its effectiveness.
A new set of PCC rules took effect on 1 October 2010. These rules aim to make the PCC a much more viable and attractive option, particularly for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). PCC proceedings are now simpler, cheaper and less reliant on evidence.
A party cannot now recover more than £50,000 in legal costs. Therefore a party knows that, if it loses its case, it will not pay more than this amount for its opponent’s costs.
The other significant change is that cases will be front-loaded and primarily paper-based. Parties must set out their position fully in their initial pleadings, including detailed arguments and statements of their case. The intention is that the trial will go forward solely based on these pleadings, and at trial, parties will only be allowed to produce further evidence or cross-examine witnesses in rare cases. This new procedure should make PCC litigation significantly quicker and keep costs relatively low.
The new judge at the patents country court, HH Judge Birss, will take an active role in proceedings. He will make the Case Management Conference (CMC) a key stage of the process. At the CMC, both parties come before the judge, to discuss how the case will be taken forward to trial. The judge may give directions or deadlines for the parties to follow.
The first CMC under the new rules was held on 22 October 2010 in the case of Westwood v Knight. The conduct of the conference itself provided a demonstration of how the judge will enforce the new rules.
It is clear that the judge will be very strict in allowing any additional evidence or arguments after initial proceedings have been filed. He will perform a detailed cost-benefits analysis, and will only admit those which are of use and not be expensive. A party starting proceedings at the PCC must very sure of their case from outset.
In Westwood v Knight the judge set a trial date at the CMC, just 6 months after the CMC. This was a clear sign that the judge is committed to speedy intellectual property litigation.
The reformed Patents County Court is off to a promising start. Forresters is already involved in a case at the PCC under the new rules. We will follow the progress of all PCC cases to remain in the best position to advise our clients.
If you have any queries regarding the Patents County Court, or Intellectual Property litigation in general, please do not hesitate to contact us.