2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases

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

2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
Intellectual Property - Folder Name in Directory.

On November 16 2020, the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Rights Cases (A.M. No. 10-3-10-SC) promulgated by the Supreme Court of the Philippines (SC) took effect. The object of the revised rules is to improve and expedite IP cases recognising that an effective IP system is vital to the development of domestic and creative activity, facilitating transfer of technology, attracting foreign investments and ensuring market access to Philippine products. This is the spirit of the IP Code or Republic Act 8293. The salient points of the revised rules are as follows:

1. The number of special commercial courts handling IP cases with authority to issue search warrants and writs of seizure nationwide are increased from four to nine courts located in various cities within the country.

2. Complaints and answers thereto must already include the evidences supporting them upon filing.

3. Extraterritorial service as provided in treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory shall be allowed.

4. Courts may now allow the use of electronic means such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing in the taking of depositions and other modes of discovery.

5. For purposes of awarding damages in patent infringement cases, it is presumed that the alleged infringer knew of the patent if the words "Philippine Patent" with the number of the patent is placed on the product, container, package or advertising materials relating to the protected invention.

6. Market surveys defined as a scientific market or consumer survey to prove distinctiveness, strength and well-known status of a mark may be offered as evidence.

7. The lack of authority of the defendant to exercise any of the rights of the right holder shall be sufficient basis for the filing of the motion for the disposal and/or the destruction of the counterfeit or pirated goods, the procedure for which shall be summary in nature. The defendant or accused shall be notified to give opportunity to oppose the motion.

8. Rule on the disposal of seized infringing goods, related objects or devices now includes donation for humanitarian purposes except hazardous goods which shall be disposed of only by destruction.

9. Special commercial courts are now mandated to render judgment within 60 days from the time the case is submitted for decision. This period is shorter than the 90 days allowed to regular courts.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article