IPEC Figure 1: Division of published IPEC cases since 2010


Registered and unregistered designs


Trademarks and passing off


In addition, Hacon himself is well placed to hear disputes in those fields, being a graduate in microbiology and having represented chemical and life science businesses at the English courts and the European Patent Office throughout his career.


IPEC does have some guidelines (set out in the IPEC guide) explaining how to decide whether a case is suitable for its streamlined approach, and the court itself follows those guidelines if a party requests a transfer to the High Court.


Patents


Copyright and database rights


Although IPEC’s procedure mirrors that of an English High Court action, the cost savings are largely achieved by streamlining. Trials usually last a single day and cannot be longer than two. Proactive case management ensures that the pleadings phase is short and focused, interim applications are disposed of quickly and oſten on the papers, and orders can be made on the judge’s initiative to ensure the case does not driſt.


Another important feature that could have a significant bearing on biotech and chemistry cases is that


the quantity of documentary


evidence is usually tightly controlled to specific issues. Expert evidence and experiments in particular are limited by both the costs cap and the time available to consider them at trial.


IPEC cases to date


As shown in Figure 1, since the 2010 rule change IPEC has published a relatively even split of cases between the four main IP spheres—trademarks, designs, copyright and patents—with 26% of the cases reportedly relating to patents.


Of the reported patent cases, a clear majority relate to mechanical inventions and, in most cases, at least one of the parties is an SME. However, it is noteworthy that the court has also decided cases between two large organisations (Unilever v SC Johnson & Son 2012), where Potter Clarkson instructed Hogarth Chambers for the claimant in a patent revocation action.


Despite the increasing number of cases considered by IPEC, very few of


the patent


disputes are in the biotech or chemical fields. Our review of reported cases showed a single biotech case (Elsworth Ethanol & Anor v Hartley


32 Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review


Te first consideration is the value of the claim. Te question to be considered here is whether the value of any damages and/or an injunction would be around or less than the £500,000 cap. While many biotech or chemical patent cases would expect to be valued well above this figure, claims relating to new or future products with an unproven market value could fall squarely within it.


A further consideration is the likely complexity of


quantity of


“EXPERT EVIDENCE AND EXPERIMENTS IN PARTICULAR ARE LIMITED BY BOTH THE COSTS CAP AND THE TIME AVAILABLE TO CONSIDER THEM AT TRIAL.”


& Ors 2014), which amounted to an entitlement dispute, and a single chemical case (Merck Canada & Anor v Sigma Pharmaceuticals 2012), which focused on a legal point surrounding parallel imports.


To date, there has been no reported IPEC case concerning the infringement or validity of a biotech or chemical patent. Tis perhaps raises the question of whether the forum is suitable for such disputes or whether potential litigants are missing out on a quick and cost-effective route to justice.


Is IPEC suitable?


IPEC is a specialist IP court that draws its judges from the same pool of barristers as its big brother, the Patents Court. For this reason alone, the technical and legal capabilities of IPEC should not be viewed any differently from the Patents Court’s. IPEC is well able to decide the complex technical and legal points that can arise in biotech and chemical cases.


Volume 2, Issue 1


Te two-day limit on a trial seriously curtails IPEC’s ability to consider complex experiments and to allow lengthy


the case and, particularly, the nature and the facts and evidence involved.


cross-examination of


experts. Case management requirements provide that all experiments, experts and even cross-examination timetables must be approved before they can be included. If any are expected to be long and complex, they will not be permitted.


Finally, the likely cost of financial standing of both


the action and the parties are of


importance. It is generally accepted that the cost of the action for both parties will exceed the £50,000 recoverable cost cap; a simple patent case might cost between £80,000 and £100,000 to take to trial, while between £100,000 and £120,000 might be regarded as a sensible budget. If the cost is expected to exceed this, the case may be more suited to the High Court. IPEC may make an exception if it is clear that one of the parties demonstrably cannot afford to litigate elsewhere.


Te upshot of these guidelines is that it is unlikely that a full consideration of infringement and validity of a biotech or chemical patent could be undertaken at IPEC. However, there is no reason to believe that it is irrelevant to a wider enforcement or freedom-to-operate strategy for life science businesses.


If a claim can be limited to a single action (such as, say, patent revocation) it is easier to envisage running the case within the streamlined procedure. Terefore, the court could be used to deal efficiently with a patent revocation action, an entitlement dispute or, perhaps, a groundless threats action


www.lifesciencesipreview.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