Patents County Court: users propose reform

As has recently been reported on PatLit, the Working Group of the Intellectual Property Court Users' Committee has just gone public with its proposals for reform of the Patents County Court for England and Wales. This court, which was set up with the best intentions of reducing the cost of patent litigation and making altogether simpler and more user-friendly, has not been able to achieve that desired end -- for more reasons than the IPKat has time to enumerate in the space of a short weblog article.

The Working Group has come up with some constructive and sensible proposals for improving the current system -- and has not shied away from problems either. If you'd like to read the proposals and email your comments to the Group's secretary Philip Westmacott, please do so by 3 July 2009.

Says the IPKat, one of the proposals is to change the name of the court from the Patents County Court to the Intellectual Property County Court. This won't actually make the litigation cheaper, but it may sound a little less expensive to litigants who have already been exposed to courts with the P word in their name. Merpel adds, don't print the proposals out in full. Although the document is 24 pages, page 2 is blank, as is the penultimate page, while the final page is a single blank sheet of orangey-red (a great waste of colour toner).
Patents County Court: users propose reform Patents County Court: users propose reform Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, June 15, 2009 Rating: 5


  1. Merpel clearly prefers to view these things in terms of black and white.

  2. It seems to me that we are not being given very long to review and comment on this.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.