Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

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.


Helga Chapman

Chapman IP

Kings Park House, 22 Kings Park Road

Southampton SO15 2AT

United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0) 23 8000 2022

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

IP counsel urge the government to restrict safe harbour exceptions available to intermediaries and clear up doubts with the existing law
A New York lawyer could face sanctions after citing fake judgments generated by ChatGPT, but that doesn’t mean practitioners should shy away from AI
Klaus Grabinski told delegates at a UPC inauguration event that the proposed SEP regulation would limit access to justice
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Sukanya Sarkar shares her thoughts on this year’s annual meeting in Singapore, where debates ranged from AI opportunities to improving law firm culture
The court’s ruling is a good reminder that US parties aren’t guaranteed attorney fees just because they win, say sources
With business confidence in a shaky state, Rachel Tan and Lisa Yong of Rouse discuss how in-house IP teams can manage their trademark portfolios through uncertain times
The Court of Appeal had stern words for Med-El’s representatives after they highlighted a deputy judge’s background as a solicitor
Funders and NPEs say asserting patent portfolios can minimise risk at the USPTO’s PTAB, where procedure remains a controversial topic
The US Supreme Court’s ruling wasn’t a surprise and reflects a trend that had already been bubbling away for a while, say tech and pharma counsel