Following the IPKat's Friday Fantasies post enquiring about the status of the promised small claims track for the Patents County Court, Katpat to Philip Harris of Walker Morris who, after a not inconsiderable amount of digging, has discovered that The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2012 were laid before Parliament on 29 August 2012 [even though Parliament is on holiday].
Section [or is that Rule?] 10 of the amending legislation alters Civil Procedure Rule (CPR - the rules which govern civil proceedings in England & Wales) Part 63 so that claims in the Patents County Court may be allocated to the small claims track. However, this is only if:
(a) rule 63.13, but not rule 63.2, applies to the claim;
(b) the value of the claim is not more than £5,000;
(c) it is stated in the particulars of claim that the claimant wishes the claim to be
allocated to the small claims track; and
(d) no objection to the claim being allocated to the small claims track is raised by the
defendant in the defence.
Patents and registered designs are not included being covered as they are by CPR 63.2. However, trade marks, unregistered designs and database rights are in. The Rules come in to force on 1 October 2012.
Patents County Court small claims track
![Patents County Court small claims track]()
Reviewed by Robert Cumming
on
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
Thanks for the update.
ReplyDeleteIn the Small Claims Court will images such as photographs and illustrations (registered or unregistered copyright) also be included?
I can't envisage a brand owner being willing to settle for a maximum £5000 award, nor a designer or even a database owner (unless it was a small online database list) - I could envisage a flood gate opening if individual images, graphics and illustrations were included.
So a claim would go straight to the defendant's court. Could the claimant be awarded the costs of travel?
ReplyDeleteAnd would this mean that a small claim could still be transferred to the multi-track at the court's discreation, without the claimant having a say in it, with consequent extra expense?
Photographs are definitely included. BTW there's no copyright registration in this country. it's not recognised or required.
ReplyDeleteHave I answered my own question, in that as there is only one PCC, in London, there's no danger of a case being transferred to the defendant's home court? The other question still stands, though.