Posts

Showing posts with the label Bristol

NIPC News Roundup 3 Oct 2017

Image
Business and Property Courts The Business and Property Courts in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Manchester and London went live yesterday. I discussed them in Launch of a Judicial Superhighway   on 12 July 2014 in IP North West and  The Leeds Business and Property Courts   on 12 July 2017 in IP Yorkshire. On 27 Sept 2017, the Judiciary issued a new 14-page advisory note  which I mentioned in   Better than the M4 - "The Judicial Superhighway"  2 Oct 2017. Relevance  This topic affects IP practitioners and owners as well as litigation lawyers throughout the UK, particularly those in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds and Manchester. Commonwealth Games Birmingham has been chosen as the UK's candidate city to host the Commonwealth Grounds. Like all other major sporting events, the Games will rely on sponsorship, broadcasting and licensing revenues but, unlike the Olympics, there is nothing like the Nairobi Treaty or Olympic asso...

Maybe we need to think again about the Chancery District Registries and County Courts

Image
Manchester Civil Justice Centre, Wikpedia Commons Jane Lambert In "Success Fees and ATE Premiums in the Patents County Court: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd " 4 May 2013 NIPC Law, I blogged about Judge Birss QC's decision in  Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd and Another [2013] EWPCC 19 (27 March 2013) where an impecunious singer song writer who had successfully brought proceedings in the Patents County Court for infringement of her performer's rights against a major record label was allowed  £52,484.25 in costs. Had she brought her claim in the Chancery Division she might well have been awarded £232,676.20. One of the reasons why Judge Birss QC would not allow her more was that "a litigant who wishes to recover a reasonable proportion of the totality of his of her legal costs has a clear option available, to litigate in the High Court. In that system none of the problems now faced by the claimant would...