“Too Fast to Live, Too Young to Die, Too Long to Read ..."

The judge affirmed that artistic copyright vested in this
device, notwithstanding that Westwood might have
borrowed the slogan from a biker's jacket

The IPKat has mentioned from time to time (and PatLit has mentioned on a weekly basis) the fabled new regime for trying smaller, cheaper, more user-friendly IP actions in the refreshed Patents County Court for England and Wales.  While Judge Colin Birss QC is the judicial "new broom" that everyone has been so excited about, the new broom has been sweeping a load of old crumbs up till now, since the cases that have passed beneath his watchful countenance up till now were all "oldies", governed by the old procedural scheme which everyone has been so keen to modernise.  But today, his voice choking with unfeigned emotion (the Kats fondly imagine), in Dame Vivienne Westwood OBE v Anthony Edward Knight [2011] EWPCC 008, the judge was heard to utter the long-awaited words:

"This is the first trial in the Patents County Court conducted under the new procedural scheme applicable in this court which came into force in October 2010".

The judgment itself is a blockbuster, following on from the case management conference in late November (noted by the IPKat here).  Considering that there was only one day's hearing and that the defendant was self-represented, 240 paragraphs is a not inconsiderable output.  Despite the length and keen attention to detail, there is no evidence to suggest that real author was Mr Justice Arnold.  At the time of composing this note, the judgment had not yet been posted on BAILII, but the IPKat is happy to host it for you here.

In brief, Knight was helping himself to a basketful of  Dame Vivienne's IP (she of "Too fast to live, too young to die" fame. More on the dame here); she threw the book at him. There was no way he was going to win, or even draw: the only questions of interest were how badly he would lose, how long it would take, how much of a nuisance he was going to make of himself and whether the new procedures worked.

The IPKat is pleased to have a reaction from two of his friends at Taylor Wessing (Jason Rawkins & Damian Simpson) who were on the winning side:

“Our experience of running the first case in the new streamlined PCC is that it has absolutely lived up to its aspirations of being a faster, cheaper way of getting expert justice in IP cases. The Court’s proactive and flexible approach went a long way to helping us run the case efficiently and cost-effectively for Vivienne Westwood. Some striking examples of this include the Court ordering a telephone hearing a few days before trial to address issues which may otherwise have taken up time at trial, and the Court being available at 12 minutes notice when that hearing had to be rescheduled. It was also extremely helpful to have the same judge throughout – it was very clear, each time we appeared before him, that the Judge had pre-read all the materials in considerable detail, which saved us a lot of time.

We would wholeheartedly recommend the process, which really does give IP owners a viable alternative to pricey High Court litigation. Based on our experience, it is definitely possible to run a standard case through to trial in the PCC within the overall £50,000 costs cap.

From our hearing today, we also expect that the Court’s judgment on costs will include some important guidance on how the PCC’s costs caps are to be applied. We will report back on this when we have news.”

Well done everyone, says the IPKat, who particularly liked the bit about the judge having pre-read all the papers (Merpel says, What! Another great tradition dies -- and on the very day that the bench in Court Four of the Royal Courts of Justice is still warm from the recent departure of its illustrious former occupant).

Patents County Court: users propose reform

As has recently been reported on PatLit, the Working Group of the Intellectual Property Court Users' Committee has just gone public with its proposals for reform of the Patents County Court for England and Wales. This court, which was set up with the best intentions of reducing the cost of patent litigation and making altogether simpler and more user-friendly, has not been able to achieve that desired end -- for more reasons than the IPKat has time to enumerate in the space of a short weblog article.

The Working Group has come up with some constructive and sensible proposals for improving the current system -- and has not shied away from problems either. If you'd like to read the proposals and email your comments to the Group's secretary Philip Westmacott, please do so by 3 July 2009.

Says the IPKat, one of the proposals is to change the name of the court from the Patents County Court to the Intellectual Property County Court. This won't actually make the litigation cheaper, but it may sound a little less expensive to litigants who have already been exposed to courts with the P word in their name. Merpel adds, don't print the proposals out in full. Although the document is 24 pages, page 2 is blank, as is the penultimate page, while the final page is a single blank sheet of orangey-red (a great waste of colour toner).