Philippines aims to expedite IP violation cases with Rapid Rules
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

External investor-controlled IP firms have both downsides and upsides, so they don’t deserve all the flak they get
Andrew Blattman, CEO of IPH, tells Managing IP what’s next for the group in Canada and how it navigates issues such as conflicts and cost efficiency
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In-house counsel explain how they develop or maintain 'IP-aware' cultures at their companies and how private practice lawyers can help
Josh Budwin, principal at the firm, said the case was one of the most complex technology disputes he's ever worked on
For the latest article in our regular series covering UPC developments, we summarise five rulings and highlight what’s expected later this month
John Keville, partner at Sheppard Mullin, explains how he secured a patent subject matter eligibility victory for his client against GoPro
An IP partner at Womble Bond Dickinson explains how its combination with Lewis Roca will create a fully-rounded litigation and prosecution service
Ronen Speyer of Evalueserve explains why in a competitive business landscape, IP has become a key driver in gaining a competitive advantage
Michael Sharp, who moved to Canadian firm Field Law from Aurora Cannabis in June, said he is enjoying cross-practice collaboration at his new firm
Gift this article