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 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A $110 million US verdict against Apple and an appellate order staying a $39 million trademark infringement finding against Amazon were also among the top talking points
Attorneys are watching how AI affects trademark registrations and whether a SCOTUS ruling from last year will have broader free speech implications
Patent lawyers explain why they will be keeping an eye on the implications of a pharma case and on changes at the USPTO in the second half of 2025
The insensitive reaction to a UK politician crying on TV proves we have a long way to go before we can say we are tackling workplace wellbeing
Adrian Percer says he was impressed by the firm’s work on billion-dollar cases as well as its culture
In our latest interview with women IP leaders, Catherine Bonner at Murgitroyd discusses technology, training, and teaching
Developments included an update in the VAR dispute between Ballinno and UEFA, the latest CMS updates, and a swathe of market moves
The LMG Life Sciences Americas Awards is thrilled to present the 2025 shortlist
A new order has brought the total security awarded to a Canadian tech company to $45 million, the highest-ever by an Indian court in an IP case
Andrew Blattman reflects on how IP practices have changed and shares his hopes for increased AI use and better performance on the stock market
Gift this article