The UK Patents County CourtCompetition makes it simple

Supporting logos to go in this box if there aren’t any please delete the box and text

IN ASSOCIATION WITH

Introduction

• Dramatic change• A template?

Justice in the driving seat

• A long way back• Is access to justice an issue• The attempt of 1988• Disintegration and denigration• Subsumation

A different view from the streets

• Costs and cost comparisons• My small budget• IP is a rich man’s game• Indeed it is a game

A second chance: a new PCC

• A change in environment:– Politics– Profile– Culture– Competition

• Arnold J and …• the Intellectual Property Court Users Committee

Working Group

The key issues

• Predictable costs• Open hand• Slimmer procedure

– Discovery or disclosure– Cross examination– Expert evidence– Experiments– Almost unlimited time to argue

• Managed steps

A summary list: what’s new in procedure

• Limited downside• Up front disclosure of the party’s case• Statements of case to stand as evidence• Case management• Very limited additions to evidence• Very limited disclosure• Expert evidence and experiments• Cross examination• Further applications• Trial• Costs assessment of all elements deferred to conclusion• Transfers

Summary: no change

• Patent attorneys are here to stay– Conduct of claims– Appearing as advocates

• Draw on the EPO analogy– Opposition specialists

• And the UK skills– Evidence

A summary: and substantive changes

• Damages limit– £500,000 – on patents and designs

• A change of name

The Intellectual Property County Court• Extended special jurisdiction

– Patent attorney representation

Fixed stakes roulette

• Costs limit– 50k– 25k– Abuse– Prior form: a certificate of contested validity

• You pay your own lawyer– You take your choice

Looking under every stone

• Costs

Every stone has a cost

• The court and litigants/advisors must act in ways which are proportionate to– Money– Importance– Complexity– Financial position

• Utility and proportionality are the by-words– “in relation to specific and identified issues”– “the benefit is likely to justify the costs”

Looking under every stone

• Discovery is a vital forensic tool– And rarely does inventiveness turn on it– And probably they shouldn’t anyway

• Expert evidence can be vital– but much of it is just writing history

• Experiments – All too often just confuse– And dissolve the cash

• Cross examination is the foundation of justice– sometimes – but more often its just long winded

needing to … Hands on control

• Active case management:– almost out of the blocks: 14 days after defence – CMC– slimline applications

• Leading to:– only specific disclosure (discovery)– only specified expert evidence– hardly any experiments– controlled witness statements– very limited cross examination– advance submissions– managed trial time

needing … an open hand

• Full statements of case – facts and arguments– concisely

• A target objective – that could be all you need– Statement of truth

“where possible the court will determine the parties’ claims solely on the basis of the statements of case and oral submissions”

with some safety nets

• Damages limit– Why?– How?

• To transfer or not to transfer– With SMEs at the heart

Some conclusions

• A happy coincidence• Or a creature of necessity

– Culture– Politics– Competition– Common sense

Alasdair PooreHead of Technology

Mills & Reeve LLP, Cambridge

+44 1223 222248

apoore@mills-reeve.com

www.mills-reeve.com

President

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

+44 20 7405 9450

www.cipa.org.uk