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

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

Erise IP has added a seven-practitioner trademark team from Hovey Williams, signalling its intention to help clients at all stages of development
News of prison sentences for ex-Samsung executives for trade secrets violation and an opposition filed by Taylor Swift were also among the top talking points
A multijurisdictional claim filed by InterDigital and a new spin-off firm in Germany were also among the top talking points
Duarte Lima, MD of Spruson & Ferguson’s Asia practice, says practitioners must adapt to process changes within IP systems, as well as be mindful of the implications of tech on their practices
Practitioners say the UK Supreme Court’s decision could boost the attractiveness of the UK for AI companies
New awards, including US ‘Firm of the Year’ and Latin America ‘Firm to Watch’, are among more than 90 prizes that will recognise firms and practitioners
DWF helped client Dairy UK secure a major victory at the UK Supreme Court
Hepworth Browne led Emotional Perception AI to victory at the UK Supreme Court, which rejected a previous appellate decision that said an AI network was not patentable
James Hill, general counsel at Norwich City FC, reveals how he balances fan engagement with brand enforcement, and when he calls on IP firms for advice
In the second of a two-part article, Gabrielle Faure-André and Stéphanie Garçon at Santarelli unpick EPO, UPC and French case law to assess the importance of clinical development timelines in inventive step analyses
Gift this article