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

Junior lawyers aren’t unwilling to work hard, as some seniors believe; rather, they are rejecting traditional career advancement models that have limited payoff
Rebekah Gay discusses overcoming self-doubt, supporting the next generation of women lawyers, and how changing client demands are reshaping IP practice
New filing data suggests Germany's grip on UPC litigation remains strong, while Bardehle Pagenberg, Arnold Ruess, Hogan Lovells and Carpmaels notch up notable cases
In 27 years, KASS has expanded to seven countries in southeast Asia and is now eyeing further growth opportunities. Its CEO shares her perspective
Mine Güner discusses bridging law and business, taking the initiative, and why Taylor Swift helped put copyright on the map
Cindy Goh discusses why she launched Cheang & Ariff's IP department, the improving litigation environment in Malaysia and what to consider when using AI
Increased focus on adding patent litigation depth to the firm’s Dallas office was behind the boutique’s most recent hires
IPH's Canadian acquisitions are paying off on paper, but a couple of strong years may not be enough to show that the group's strategy has truly won over the market
Examiner statistics could help patent prosecution practitioners tailor strategies, turning an area of high variability into a potential competitive advantage
The England and Wales High Court’s ruling in Accord v Novartis may not rewrite the law on plausibility, but it does signal a pragmatic approach that could provide greater certainty for life sciences innovators
Gift this article