120:
was appointed as the judge of the PCC. These rules meant that much more detail was required in the particulars of claim (the document that sets out the claimant's case), the procedure as a whole was streamlined further (no disclosure, no examination in chief of expert witness, tight control by the
227:
The
Patents County Court (Designation and Jurisdiction) Order 1990 SI No. 1496. This was subsequently revoked and replaced by The Patents County Court (Designation and Jurisdiction) Order 1994 SI No. 1609, which has in turn been amended by The High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment)
129:
As of 1 October 2013, the PCC was reformulated as the
Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, a specialist subdivision of the Business and Property Courts within the High Court. Whilst the IPEC is now part of the High Court, Patent and Trade Mark attorneys retain their rights of audience and
121:
Judge of the issues that go to trial) and financial limits were introduced to both the damages (at £500,000) and the legal costs (at £50,000, with an additional cap per stage) recoverable. Trials should last no more than two days. The revitalised court has been generally viewed as a success.
133:
Cases can be transferred from the IPEC list to be heard by the main High Court at the discretion of the IPEC; the High Court also routinely transfers cases from its list to the IPEC. As with the High Court, appeals from IPEC decisions (if leave to appeal is granted) are heard by the
115:
In order to revitalise the court and provide some procedural distinction from the High Court, a new set of procedural rules were introduced in Autumn 2010, at the same time that (as he then was) His Honour
91:, the intention was that the PCC should be a forum where simpler cases could be dealt with under a cheaper and more streamlined procedure than the High Court. In practice, following the
361:
266:
88:
351:
135:
252:
95:
of 1998, the streamlined procedure is now available in all courts. One remaining difference was that cases at the PCC can be argued by
356:
40:
320:
294:
328:
by Judge
Michael Fysh QC, (Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre (OIPRC) Working Paper Series No 3, February 2003).
146:
Cases are heard by the judge or an appointed deputy judge. Since the founding of the court, there have been four judges:
200:
325:
238:
52:
214:
64:
151:
44:
280:
186:
157:
100:
72:
68:
345:
92:
331:
163:
117:
76:
267:"Patents County Court to be renamed as Intellectual Property Enterprise Court"
56:
87:
Originally established in 1990 by an order made under
Section 287 (1) of the
321:
The
Intellectual Property Enterprise Court on the Ministry of Justice's site
104:
96:
60:
335:
48:
36:
63:. Hearings are usually conducted in the Thomas More Building at the
307:
Civil
Procedure Rules Practice Direction 52, paragraph 2A.2(2).
239:"The PCC Page, no.1: "All change at the Patents County Court""
16:
Intellectual property adjudication body in
England and Wales
201:"Take a case to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court"
103:, rather than having to be presented by separate qualified
338:solicitors, (Patent World, July/August 2003).
8:
295:"Rights to conduct Litigation and Advocacy"
362:Intellectual property adjudication bodies
332:UK Patents County Court - Phoenix Risen?
215:"Intellectual Property Enterprise Court"
150:September 1990 to September 2000 :
253:"Patents County Court proves its worth"
178:
89:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
21:Intellectual Property Enterprise Court
43:for bringing legal actions involving
7:
326:The Work of the Patents County Court
168:December 2013 onward: Richard Hacon
156:Autumn 2001 to Autumn 2010 :
14:
59:, unregistered design rights and
39:is an alternative venue to the
334:by Michael Burdon, partner at
1:
162:Autumn 2010 to Summer 2013:
352:Courts of England and Wales
378:
357:United Kingdom patent law
65:Royal Courts of Justice
228:Order 2005 SI No. 587.
125:Move to the High Court
83:Original establishment
158:Judge Michael Fysh QC
45:intellectual property
29:Patents County Court
111:2010 revitalisation
53:registered designs
27:; previously the
369:
308:
305:
299:
298:
291:
285:
284:
277:
271:
270:
263:
257:
256:
249:
243:
242:
235:
229:
225:
219:
218:
211:
205:
204:
197:
191:
190:
183:
101:patent attorneys
47:matters such as
377:
376:
372:
371:
370:
368:
367:
366:
342:
341:
317:
312:
311:
306:
302:
293:
292:
288:
279:
278:
274:
265:
264:
260:
251:
250:
246:
237:
236:
232:
226:
222:
213:
212:
208:
199:
198:
194:
185:
184:
180:
175:
144:
136:Court of Appeal
127:
113:
85:
17:
12:
11:
5:
375:
373:
365:
364:
359:
354:
344:
343:
340:
339:
329:
323:
316:
315:External links
313:
310:
309:
300:
286:
272:
258:
244:
230:
220:
206:
192:
177:
176:
174:
171:
170:
169:
166:
164:Colin Birss QC
160:
154:
143:
140:
126:
123:
112:
109:
84:
81:
73:Rolls Building
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
374:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
349:
347:
337:
333:
330:
327:
324:
322:
319:
318:
314:
304:
301:
296:
290:
287:
282:
276:
273:
268:
262:
259:
254:
248:
245:
240:
234:
231:
224:
221:
216:
210:
207:
202:
196:
193:
188:
182:
179:
172:
167:
165:
161:
159:
155:
153:
149:
148:
147:
141:
139:
137:
131:
124:
122:
119:
110:
108:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:Woolf Reforms
90:
82:
80:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
303:
289:
275:
261:
247:
233:
223:
209:
195:
181:
145:
132:
130:litigation.
128:
114:
86:
71:, or at the
32:
28:
24:
20:
18:
281:"CPR 63.1g"
187:"CPR 63.1a"
118:Colin Birss
77:Fetter Lane
57:trade marks
346:Categories
173:References
152:Peter Ford
105:barristers
97:solicitors
69:the Strand
41:High Court
61:copyright
67:site in
336:Olswang
49:patents
142:Judges
37:London
35:) in
25:IPEC
19:The
99:or
75:in
33:PCC
31:or
348::
138:.
107:.
79:.
55:,
51:,
297:.
283:.
269:.
255:.
241:.
217:.
203:.
189:.
23:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.