tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3662278692400783228..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: "Fees, please!" say the Courts, but can IP owners preserve their cash?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67992607631259431542015-09-15T13:55:38.509+01:002015-09-15T13:55:38.509+01:00Thank you, Meldrew, for confirming Canada's si...Thank you, Meldrew, for confirming Canada's significant GDP standing, namely about 60% of that of the UK.<br /><br />Of further possible interest is the fact that Canadian courts may be getting friskier in terms of extra-territorial rulings.<br /><br />HowardHoward Knopfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72994371604829552142015-09-14T18:36:23.206+01:002015-09-14T18:36:23.206+01:00Econocat
Check your sources - Canadian GDP is abo...Econocat<br /><br />Check your sources - Canadian GDP is about 60% UK GDPMeldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35670204303260504322015-09-14T14:46:12.954+01:002015-09-14T14:46:12.954+01:00There is no doubt that an injunction has value jus...There is no doubt that an injunction has value just not easily quanitifed in money terms. The current fee structure sensibly treats the injunction separately. Imagine the counter clerks in the Rolls Building evaluating the value before issuing the claim!. There might be virtue in increasing that fee and moderating some of the money claim feesFilemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-80355433448313920192015-09-14T13:18:55.251+01:002015-09-14T13:18:55.251+01:00A comment that the Kat received from Sir Robin Jac...A comment that the Kat received from Sir Robin Jacob on this article is as follows (with permission to post):<br /><br />Neat idea. But the courts may say that an injunction has value – as they do in Germany and as is contemplated for the UPC where the current idea floated for the value of a case is a notional royalty on the supposed sales of patented items over the life of the patent. Pure conjecture of course, but the Germans do something like that.<br /><br />The point could be sharpened in a quia timet action where no damages are claimed anyway or where the patentee foregoes any financial claim for past acts – that it is not fanciful since in this country people sue early and financial claims are normally very low anyway,<br /><br /><br />Robin Jacob<br />Annsley Merelle Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184706067469338128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30245541196649839352015-09-14T10:49:38.447+01:002015-09-14T10:49:38.447+01:00I agree with both Barbara and Andy - put in a clai...I agree with both Barbara and Andy - put in a claim to a smaller amount of fees subject to disclosure of the level of infringements made.<br /><br />Of course, some might say that it is incumbent on the defendant to give some indication of the level of infringement involved to ensure that the claimant takes appropriate steps, and for a claimant to request the same prior to commencing a claim to ensure that the case is commenced in the correct court.. <br /><br />This is particularly important where the case is straight-forward such that the level of damages may determine which court is appropriate to hear the case. It would be unfair on a defendant to neglect to disclose the small scale of infringement, allow the claimant to proceed on the basis that damages are likely to be in the 50-100k ballpark, and then request that the matter be transferred to the small claims track on the basis the value is less than 10k.<br /><br />Aaron Woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09187055280399284814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86132438354881057672015-09-14T10:17:30.205+01:002015-09-14T10:17:30.205+01:00Splitting liability and quantum into two trials al...Splitting liability and quantum into two trials already makes settlement difficult; particularly for the defendant, who might well be willing to concede liability at the outset if the proposed settlement figure is reasonably sensible. Current practice gives at least an indication of the figure being claimed, and therefore permits a defendant to decide the budget it is allocating to defend the case. Full prior-art searches, for the purpsoes of assessing the validity of the claimant’s IP, don’t come cheap, and are a wholly disproportionate spend if the claimant is in fact only wanting a few thousand quid in damages. But if quantum could potentially extend to £millions, the defendant would want to use every weapon at its disposal to resist liability. <br />So you could end up with defendants spending huge amounts of money to defend what turn out to be tiny claims.Idiot in a Hurrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37098745949582236132015-09-14T10:03:24.277+01:002015-09-14T10:03:24.277+01:00Solicitor advocates in the Enterprise Court in Lon...Solicitor advocates in the Enterprise Court in London don't have to wear wigs either and I never have.<br /><br />As to the fee issue, there is merit in seeking only an injunction in many cases but my view is that if you dont pay a value based fee at all then you have not made a money claim and if you have limited the value you are stuck with that limit. This is consistent with the need for defendants to know where they stand before they make a decision to defend or admit. Fysh took the view (unpublished) that the fee set a cap but Birss allowed the extra court fee to be paid late in NGRS v Silveria [2010] EWPCC 015 but the point was not argued by the defendant who did not appear. Its been a hazy question for a long time that needs clarityFilemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54259417196605472342015-09-14T08:39:37.307+01:002015-09-14T08:39:37.307+01:00Shame Canada's GDP is 1/20 of the UK's GDP...Shame Canada's GDP is 1/20 of the UK's GDP, such that a rough estimate of recoverable economic damages in Canada in connection with a global product would also be 1/20 of the UK value. That is, if the infringing product itself is even available to the Canadian market...<br />-EconocatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-19798705330052325662015-09-14T04:08:33.673+01:002015-09-14T04:08:33.673+01:00Dear Jeremy:
I should add that another advantage ...Dear Jeremy:<br /><br />I should add that another advantage to litigating in Canada is that we don't wear wigs in court:<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_dress#Canada <br /><br />I gather that wigs are still a fact of life in UK courts. The cost of a quality wig is clearly not inconsiderable. Indeed, I see that genuine horse hair barristers’ wigs cost at the least several hundred pounds:<br />http://www.chancerywigs.com/product/barristers-wig-2/<br />http://www.stanley-ley.co.uk/acatalog/Stanley_Ley_Wigs_1.html <br /><br />That’s more than enough money to buy a live horse:<br />http://www.equine.com/Rescue-Horses.html <br /><br />I imagine that there’s probably a maintenance cost too, if you don’t want these wigs to become infested or malodorous. I somehow doubt that you can you throw them in the washing machine along with your socks and undies.<br /><br />Too bad that shedded cat fur doesn’t seem to be permitted for wig material. There seems to be no shortage of that anywhere. I’m sure Merpel would approve.<br /><br />Do any British barristers charge their amortized wig costs or maintenance charges back to their clients?<br /><br />I’m surprised that there’s no active “grey market” (sorry about that) in barristers’ wigs – or heaven forbid – a black market for counterfeit polyester wigs that could presumably be made very cheaply in some far away country. Perhaps something needs to be put in a treaty about this. But let’s not give the #USTR, which is already quite wigged out, any more ideas for the #TPP or #TTIP. <br /><br />Just as we now have airport-like security in Canadian courts, I trust that you have wig inspectors in your UK courts checking for legitimacy and provenance.<br /><br />Besides, the absence of wigs may confer an aesthetic and charismatic advantage on those of us who still have lots of curly and still not yet entirely grey hair.<br /><br />Of course, foreign litigants in Canada will normally need to post security for costs. But let’s not get too technical or practical ;-)<br /><br />Canada clearly prevails in terms of lower filing fees and absence of wig costs. <br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Howard Knopf<br /><br /><br />Howard Knopfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-74302978499608611432015-09-13T20:00:30.577+01:002015-09-13T20:00:30.577+01:00Dear Jeremy:
I have a modest suggestion. Bring yo...Dear Jeremy:<br /><br />I have a modest suggestion. Bring your litigation to Canada ;-) <br /><br />In terms of Court fees, it costs $50 (~ £25) to start an Application and $150 (~ £75) to start an Action in the Federal Court. The main difference between these two procedures is that the former involves only affidavit evidence with cross-examinations and the latter involves full-blown discovery. These fees are not dependent on the amount claimed.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Howard KnopfHoward Knopfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.com