NIPC Law

Interior of the Royal Courts of Justice Author Aurelien Guichard Licence Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0 Generic Source Wikipedi a Jane Lambert Just over 6 years ago the Patents County Court Small Claims Track was launched (see my article Soon there will be a Remedy if Someone steals your Idea   19 Sept 2012 NIPC Inventors Club). I was very enthusiastic about the new court and wrote a lot about it as you can see from the bibliography in Small IP Claims   31 Jan 2017 NIPC News).  The reason for my enthusiasm was that it seemed to make IP litigation affordable for thousands of start-ups and other small businesses that felt that the law provided no effective protection for their investments in branding, design, technology and creativity  because enforcement  of their rights was too expensive and too uncertain.  Before the Civil Procedure Rules came into force in 1999 claims often began with an application for inter...

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...

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...

Following on from my article "Patents County Court - the New Small Claims Track Rules"  of 20 Sept I can now report that the Part 63 Practice Direction has been amended and that we now have a new "Guide to the Patents County Court Small Claims Track." A new paragraph 32 has been added to the Part 63 Practice Direction.   It provides as follows: " Small claims 32.1 This Practice Direction shall apply to a claim allocated to the small claims track in a patents county court to the extent provided by paragraphs 32.2 and 32.3. 32.2 The following paragraphs shall apply – (1) in Section II, 16.1, 17.1, 17.2, 19.1, 20.1, 21.1 to 21.5, 22.1, 23.1, 24.1; (2) in Section IV, 26.1, 26.2; (3) in Section V, 30.1, 31.1. 32.3 No other provision in this Practice Direction shall apply."   The Guide pretty well confirms what I had anticipated in my article of 20 Sept.  However, it contains two titbits of information that were new to me.   The first is that hearings...