UK: Patents Court is running swifter than ever

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

UK: Patents Court is running swifter than ever

Sponsored by

twobirds-400px.jpg
jurica-koletic-mllbldl5bdw-unsplash.jpg

Tristan Sherliker of Bird & Bird explains how growing efficiency means that patent cases are taking less time to get to trial in the UK

It is often said that there is a rivalry between the different patent courts of Europe. When it comes to enforcement, they each have different processes and personalities. As well as Germany’s quick, split system popular with patentees, the centralised Dutch system is well respected and popular. On the other hand, perhaps unfairly, the Italian courts gained a reputation in the 2000s as a ‘torpedo’ jurisdiction.

In this strange competition, the UK has always placed highly. They have specialist courts with specialist judges, an emphasis on technical investigation, and a disclosure system that leaves nowhere to hide. All this effort can be expensive – but that is a manageable risk and a calculated one – offset by the fact that the winner recovers their costs (or most of them).

Recently though, slowing pace has been the downside to the UK’s system. In the last few years, demand for the court’s time, has at times, exceeded the court’s capacity. However, excitingly, there are signs that this is changing. Over the last year, the court’s diary has moved more quickly, cases are taking less time to get to trial, and the machine has become well-oiled.

Growing efficiency

Clearly this is good news for the UK as a centre of IP excellence. But why the sudden uptick in activity? There are two main reasons: one is banal, but the other more interesting.

That first reason, a purely practical one, is simply that the supply of judges’ time has risen to meet that demand. Two new patent court judges have been appointed to meet demand, and the court is also making use of specialist deputy judges to handle cases quickly. This welcome additional bandwidth was sorely needed after a lack of judges that was created for various reasons in 2019 and 2020.

The second aspect is far more interesting: the court process is getting smarter. There has been a spate of innovations and efficiencies in the court’s procedures which, taken all together, have really oiled the gears. An example of efficiency comes from lessons learned during the pandemic: after being dragged forcibly into the information age by repeated lockdowns, the court became accustomed to holding whole trials by video link, with electronic papers and witnesses deposed via Teams or Zoom. Now, this has become the norm for shorter hearings, which by default will all be done remotely, reducing the overhead along the road to trial.

Delivery of timely verdicts

The court has also made clear statements that it intends to do justice swiftly. In the Patents Court, there have been clear judicial statements that the court intends to bring patent cases to trial in 12 months or less where possible, and this is being done even in cases of high complexity. Beyond that, the Shorter Trials Scheme procedure – which allows less complex cases to jump the queue – has been used more and more in the context of IP – there have even been full patent cases in the Shorter Trials Scheme.

So, it seems that the English Patents Court is setting out its stall for more business. With the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on the horizon, it will clearly be important for the specialist court to retain and build on its reputation. There is even more reason for optimism here too, as Lord Justice Birss, a pre-eminent IP judge, has recently been appointed as Deputy Head of Civil Justice. He has made it clear that he will be spearheading further moves towards swift, modern dispute resolution in the coming years.

 

Tristan Sherliker

Senior associate, Bird & Bird

E: tristan.sherliker@twobirds.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
The keenly awaited ruling should act as a ‘call to arms’ for a much-needed evolution of UK copyright law, says Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard
Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Gift this article