IPEC
IPEC: THE RIGHT FORUM FOR LIFE SCIENCES?
The UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court offers a quick and cheap way to resolve IP disputes, but very few have involved life sciences inventions. Mark Didmon and Simon Curtis of Potter Clarkson ask whether IPEC is an appropriate forum for handling these types of patent disputes.
enterprises (SMEs) with quick and relatively cheap access to specialist justice in the IP fi eld. Since then, the PCC, which was later rebranded as the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), has been a runaway success.
I
T e judge appointed to the PCC in 2010, Colin Birss, oversaw a 70% increase in the number of claims it handled, while attracting rave reviews for his considered judgments and an active case management style that was perfectly suited to the low-cost nature of the court. Birss was elevated to the High Court in 2013, allowing Richard Hacon to take the IPEC reins at the start of 2014.
T e 2010 revamp brought two headline changes: a cap of £500,000 ($795,000) on damages awards and, perhaps more signifi cantly, a cap of
just
£50,000 on recoverable costs. T ese limits have clearly increased the appetite for smaller businesses to assert their IP rights, but have also encouraged larger businesses to pursue lower- value claims that they might otherwise have ignored or settled for less favourable terms.
n 2010, the Patents County Court (PCC) updated its rules with the express intention of providing small and medium-sized
www.lifesciencesipreview.com
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review
Volume 2, Issue 1
31
KIM LATHE PHOTOGRAPHY /
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44