Philippines aims to expedite IP violation cases with Rapid Rules

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

Philippines aims to expedite IP violation cases with Rapid Rules

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
flag-1195392.jpg

As the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines invites public comments on a proposal to streamline the adjudication of intellectual property violation cases, Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group summarises the key measures

In a move to expedite the resolution of intellectual property (IP) violation cases, on June 25 2024 the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines opened a public consultation on its proposed Rules of Procedure on Resolution of Actions without Provisional Remedies in IP Cases with Delimited Damages (the Rapid Rules). The deadline for the submission of comments is July 25 2024.

The salient points of the Rapid Rules are as follows:

  • The rules apply only to IP cases in which no provisional remedies are prayed for.

  • The damages claimed, including attorney’s fees and other legal costs, should not be lower than PHP 200,000 but should not exceed PHP 500,000.

  • No motion to dismiss on any of the grounds mentioned in the Rules of Court or in any other law shall be allowed, except on the ground of prescription.

  • By agreement of the parties, hearings may be conducted via online videoconference, by filing a joint motion at least seven days before the scheduled hearing.

  • Affidavits of witnesses shall be prepared in the language known to them, with an English translation if not in English, and shall contain, among others, a statement that they are answering the questions under oath and are fully conscious that they may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

  • Complaints filed under the Rapid Rules must be verified and filed within four years from the date of commission of the violation, or if the date is unknown, from the date of discovery of the violation. The filing of the verified complaint and other submissions shall be by email and failure to comply shall be a ground for dismissal of the complaint.

  • Substantial evidence shall be sufficient to support a decision or an order.

  • Trials are expedited, with the hearing officer setting the case for successive and continuous trial, and the parties are given five days each to present their evidence. The decision of the hearing office shall be issued within 60 calendar days after the case is submitted for resolution.

  • The director or hearing officer is not bound by the technical rules of evidence, shall receive relevant and material evidence, and shall act according to justice and fairness.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Earlier this month, Managing IP had exclusively reported that the French arm of Taylor Wessing was minded to pull out of the deal
Our latest podcast examines how Weil’s IP practice evolved, where its practitioners could (and will) go next, and which firms and markets stand to benefit from the redistribution of talent
Former Latham partner Chris Henry and transactions lawyer Liza Cotter are heading to the firm as Weil’s IP practice starts to disperse
Rival IP teams return to court for a closely watched appeal over AI and copyright, but observers hoping for answers to some of the technology’s biggest legal questions may be left disappointed
Eight years after its launch, members of the Australian patent firm’s Singapore office explain its growth strategy over the past year
Lawyers at Bowmans Kenya discuss the digital blind spots posed by the transition from physical ledgers to cloud databases and digital co-development models
The Powell Gilbert co-founder discusses the confidence required to launch a firm, building an enduring patent litigation practice and why developing the next generation has changed her measure of success
Cabinet M Oproiu’s Raluca Vasilescu explains why AI is changing what clients expect from patent attorneys, where the technology is overhyped and what the next generation will need to do differently
As clients demand more flexible fees and AI-driven efficiencies, IP firms are rethinking pricing without abandoning the value of their work
HG Law was formed largely by ex Fish & Neave lawyers who left after the latter's merger with Ropes & Gray; now those experiences are shaping its latest combination
Gift this article