Showing posts from February, 2017

Small IP Claims Update

Jane Lambert

It is not often that one receives an accolade from a client. Usually, if a client wins, it is down to the natural justice of the case and nothing to do with the eloquence or preparation of the advocate. If the client loses, it's all the lawyer's fault.

So it was lovely to receive thanks from a public access client earlier this week whose case in the small IP claims track has just been resolved to his satisfaction. The client said that it actually took him a very long time to find someone who truly understands IP the way I do, especially in relation to e-commerce and added that there is certainly a market there for me to tackle.

Although the case was in the small claims track it was not an easy one.  Had the claim not settled a novel point of law would have to have been decided and there were also procedural issues that required several preliminary hearings.

Before 2010 claims like this would have been brought in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice wh…

Five Pernicious Intellectual Property Myths

Jane Lambert

In this article, I am challenging the following myths that are probably responsible for our trailing many of our competitors in the number of patent, design and trade mark applications.

Myth #1  There's no point in acquiring an intellectual property right because you can never afford to enforce it.

It is probably still the case that England and Wales (and indeed Scotland and Northern Ireland) are among the most expensive countries in the world to bring a full blown patent action.  That is because our legal system provides for close investigation of the evidence and full consideration of the arguments which tends to assure the most just outcome.

But most IP cases do not require that degree of scrutiny. For the last 6 ½ years the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (formerly the Patents County Court) has provided a high-quality dispute resolution service where the issues are defined in advance, trials are limited to two days and recoverable costs are capped at £50,00…

The Duty to Consider ADR

"Litigation should be a last resort" begins para 8 of Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols which both sides to a dispute are required to follow. The paragraph continues:
"As part of a relevant pre-action protocol or this Practice Direction, the parties should consider whether negotiation or some other form of ADR might enable them to settle their dispute without commencing proceedings." The obligation to consider ways of settling a dispute is not a once-and-for-all step but continues even after a claim form has been issued.

What Paragraph 8 means in Practice

When I read that paragraph to clients they often have three questions:
What is meant by "ADR"?How do I get some of this ADR? andWhat happens if I don't consider ADR?What is meant by ADR?
"ADR" stands for "alternative dispute resolution" which is defined in the Glossary to the Civil Procedure Rules as
"Collective description of methods of resolving disputes …