UK: IPEC provides a quick and simple option in litigation

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

UK: IPEC provides a quick and simple option in litigation

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) has an objective to provide quick and cost-effective IP litigation. It has proved to be popular.

A requirement for cheaper and quicker IP litigation was identified back in the 1980s. Small and medium-sized companies and individuals often found that traditional High Court litigation was expensive and time-consuming. Many were not prepared to enter litigation and take the risk of being liable for the other party's costs if they were to lose.

Small and medium businesses are the core users of IPEC. It has become recognised for high-quality decisions, and larger companies are now also attracted to using it for certain cases. Such cases have a limited number of issues and will not require extensive discovery or evidence. However, IPEC has become a victim of its own success and its diary has become fairly full.

One main advantage of using IPEC is the £50,000 ($70,000) limit on the costs which a winning party can claim from the losing party. This does not stop either party, but it does mean that one with a limited budget can afford to try, without fearing exorbitant costs if they lose.

There is a cap on damages as well; IPEC can only award damages of up to £500,000 ($698,000). However, a damages award may not be the main aim of a litigant. In many IP disputes a successful outcome is a full injunction which prevents a competitor from selling a competing product or process.

It is very important to prepare an IPEC case thoroughly from the outset. IPEC does not look kindly on speculative cases; all the issues and arguments must be presented at the start. Each party needs to focus on a few key points. For example, only a limited number of patent claims will be considered for infringement or validity. There simply is not the time to consider each claim in a lengthy patent.

Trial is often only a day or two at most, providing very limited time for cross-examination and disclosure. It pays to be extremely well-prepared and succinct in arguments. It can be an extremely useful forum for settling reasonably straightforward cases quickly.

Chapman

Helga Chapman

Chapman IP

Kings Park House, 22 Kings Park Road

Southampton SO15 2AT

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 23 8000 2022  

info@chapmanip.com  

www.chapmanip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Gift this article