It is never enough to get a patent, trade mark or registered design.

Corporation of Lloyds

Author phogel, Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 GenericSource Wikipedia 

Jane Lambert

As a barrister, I am often shown a blatant act of piracy or a breathtakingly unjustified letter before claim and am asked for my opinion on the strength of the claim. More often than not, that is the last I ever hear of the matter.  Sometimes I run into the patent agent or solicitor who consulted me and ask what happened. "Oh! The client just could not afford to fight" is the usual answer. "So he let it go" or as the case may be, "He just caved in."

Now if you consult TaylorWessing's Patent Map, click the arrow beside "I have a question for all countries" in the left-hand box, click again on "Questions concerning First Instance" and choose the "Typical costs at first instance?" option, you will see why.  The figure for England and Wales is £200,000 to £1 million. Compare that to France (€200,000 to €800,000), Germany (infringement €100,000 to €200,000 and the same for validity), the Netherlands (€75,000 to €200,000_ and Switzerland (court fees: €830 - €125,000 attorney's fees: €1,700 - €250,000). It is not surprising that only 5,736 European patent applications were made from the UK in 2018 compared to 26,734 from Germany, 10,317 from France, 7,927 from Switzerland 7,140 from the Netherlands (source European patent applications by country of origin 2009 to 2018).

Of course, those figures don't tell the whole story. Patents for European countries can be granted by national intellectual property offices such as the IPO in Newport as well as by the European Patent Office. Intellectual property litigation can be conducted far more cheaply in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court than the Patents Court or the rest of the Chancery Division.  But these figures tend to confirm the widely-held view that IP litigation in England and Wales is prohibitively expensive and that it is just not worth spending many thousands of pounds on a patent or other registered right which costs many thousands of pounds more to enforce. 

Now what, if anything, can be done about that? The Ministry of Justice has probably done as much as it could by streamlining the practice and procedure of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, introducing a small claims track for the simpler cases and requiring all courts to manage their cases at proportionate costs. The IPO offers a cost-effective mediation service and examiners' opinions on such issues as whether a patent is valid and whether it has been infringed. The Unified Patents Court would have created a level playing field for all European patent owners but that may well have been scuppered by brexit and litigation in the German Constitutional Court,

Probably the best way forward is for businesses to consider enforcement whenever they apply for a patent, trade mark or registered design or acquire some non-registrable right. In the case of a start-up or other small business that probably means taking out IP insurance.  I have been writing about this topic since 2005 (see IP Insurance: Does it Work? 3 Sept 2005 NIPC Law, IP Insurance 3 Sept 2005 NIPC Inventors' Club, 6 Feb 2006 IP Insurance: Two More Insurers Identified 6 Feb 2006 NIPC Inventors Club, IP Insurance Five Years On 26 Oct 2010 NIPC Inventors Club, Intellectual Property - The Funding Options 10 April 2013 NIPC Law, IP Insurance: CIPA's Paper and 1 May 2916 NIPC Inventors Club).

Back in 2005, there were not many brokers with experience of arranging IP insurance and many patent and trade mark attorneys were sceptical of the value of the policies. Because after-the-event premiums and success fees were then recoverable from unsuccessful paries, many rightsholders thought that it would always be possible to find solicitors and counsel who would accept instructions on a no-win-no-fee retainer should a dispute ever arise.  All that changed with the Legal Aid, Sentencing, Punishment and Management of Offenders Act 2012 and costs capping in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (see Success Fees and ATE Premiums in the Patents County Court: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd 14 July 2011 NIPC Law). The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys published IP Insurance and other IP litigation funding arrangements in 2016.  The Intellectual Property Office published its guidance on Intellectual Property Insurance on 22 Jan 2016 which it updated earlier this year.

The IPO's guidance covers the types of before-the-event IP insurance policies that are available, the types of litigation, jurisdiction and risks that can be covered, the costs and benefits, the criteria for setting premiums, the claiming process and alternatives to litigation such as IPO examiners' opinions and mediation.  There is also a list of specialist brokers on the CIPA and IPO's websites.  Provision for IP insurance premiums or some other funding should appear in every business plan.  Angels, private equity investors, bankers and other lenders should insist on it.  It is as important as rent, equipment hire and employees' wages.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or IP insurance generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form. 

IP Insurance: CIPA's Paper

Lloyd's of London

(c) 2011 Lloyd's: all rights reserved

Source Wikipedia

Creative Commons Licence

Jane Lambert

It will cost you several thousand pounds to get a patent for the UK and considerably more if you require patent protection elsewhere in the world especially outside Europe but unless you can enforce your monopoly in the civil courts you may as well spend the money on a new car or exotic holiday or even down the pub.

The cost of patent litigation has come down considerably in England and Wales (though not in Scotland and Northern Ireland) with the changes to CPR Part 63 in 2010 (see New Patents County Court Rules 31 Oct 2010 NIPC Law) but it is still not cheap. The costs that you may recover from the other side are capped at £50,000 for the trial on liability plus another £25,000 for an account or inquiry but you will probably have to pay at least as much out on your own solicitors and counsel and probably a great deal more. As for litigation in the Patent Court there are no limits though the judges will do their best to keep the parties focused on the issues and avoid unnecessary expense.

So what are your options if you are an inventor or small business owner?

• "Legal aid?" Sorry, chum, that was abolished for business disputes by paragraph 1 (h) of Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 although it may become available for litigation in the Unified Patent Court (see Legal Aid for the UPC 23 Jan 2016), 
• "How about no win, no fee?" No mate!  That may be a perfectly sensible way of funding personal injuries claims against insurance companies but intellectual property litigation isn't like that. For a start liability (whether your patent has been infringed) and the account or inquiry (how much money is due to you) are separate proceedings separated by many months and sometimes years. There's a great deal more uncertainty. Several lawyers have got their fingers burnt (see Success Fees and ATE Premiums in the Patents County Court: Henderson v All Around the World Recordings Ltd. 4 May 2013 NIPC Law).
• Litigation funding? Possibly but unlikely. Most funds shy away from IP litigation for the same reason lawyers steer clear of no win no fee retainers in this area of law.
• Legal indemnity insurance? You will find that most policies specifically exclude IP litigation.

No your best bet is IP insurance. Two of my most popular posts in this blog have been IP Insurance 3 Sept 2005 and IP Insurance Five Years On 23 Oct 2010.

More than five years have elapsed since my 2010 update but I have decided not to update it because the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys have just done that job for me.  They have published a 10 page report entitled IP Insurance and other IP litigation funding arrangements which can be downloaded from the CIPA's website. This report discusses before and after-the-event insurance and various alternative funding arrangements and then lists the brokers, insurers and other associations who offer IP cover. 

Anyone wishing to discuss this article, the CIPA report or IP insurance in general should call me during on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Top 10 Tips for Resolving IP Disputes

1. Be careful what you say and do.
If you threaten to sue someone for patent infringement you can be sued yourself under s.70 of the Patents Act 1977 unless you can justify those threats. You can be injuncted (ordered to refrain from making those threats on pain of imprisonment or fine for disobedience) and made to pay substantial damages and costs. So leave the accusations to your lawyers or patent attorneys who can take care of themselves.

2. Consider Before-the-Event Insurance
It is not a crime to infringe a patent in this country. You and only you are responsible for enforcing your monopoly. You must do that through the courts which can be expensive. There is no longer legal aid for IP or other business disputes. Because most IP litigation proceeds in 2 phases it is difficult for most lawyers to accept "no win no fee" retainers, especially now that it is no longer possible to recover success fees and after-the-event insurance premiums from the losing party. You must also make provision for the costs of the other side if you are unsuccessful.  Unless you can raise at least £100,000 from your own resources you should consider before-the-event IP insurance before a dispute arises because the premiums for after-the-event insurance are astronomical (see IP Insurance Five Years On  23 Oct 2014).

3. Follow the Practice Direction - Pre-Action  Conduct
This is very important because the court has power under paragraph 4 to penalize parties who fail to comply with the Practice Direction.  Remember that the purpose of the Practice Direction is to enable parties to settle their dispute without the need to start proceedings and that litigation should be the very last resort. Make sure that your letter before claim complies with Annex A of the Practice Direction and that you supply all the information and enclose all the documents that the other side will need to decide whether you have a valid claim. Although it was published some years ago you may also find the Code of Practice for Pre-Action Conduct in Intellectual Property Disputes useful.

4.  Consider ADR (Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution)
As a general rule the sooner you resolve your dispute the better it will be for all concerned. True, you may be able to force a settlement if the other side runs out of money before you do but then you will also have incurred costs which your opponent may not be able to pay. As I have said above, one of the aims of the Pre-Action Conduct Practice Direction is to help you settle your dispute without recourse to litigation. You can do that through direct negotiations with the other side or you can ask an intermediary known as a "mediator" to help you. He or she will collect information in confidence from each of the parties and look for common ground upon which a settlement can be based. Often the settlement is a solution that would never have occurred to either of the parties (see Mediating Disputes from the Trade Marks Registry 1 Sept 2005 NIPC Law). The Intellectual Property Office runs a good mediation service (see The IPO's New Improved Mediation Service - will it make a difference? 7 April 2013 NIPC Law) as does the World Intellectual Property Office (see ADR of Intellectual Property Disputes 22 Aug 2006 NIPC Law). If there is a bona fide dispute that only a determination by a trusted third party will resolve you may be able to obtain an opinion on the issue from an examiner of the Intellectual Property Office for as little as £200 (see Intellectual Property Act 2014: The New Law on Opinions 29 Oct 2014 NIPC Law).

5.  Budget for Litigation as you would any other Expenditure
Since April 2013 the parties to a dispute have had a duty to help the court to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. In order to comply with that obligation most parties that are legally represented have to draw up, file and exchange budgets for conducing the litigation before the first case management conference under CPR 3.13 and the court may impose limits to the parties' expenditure if it thinks fit. There are a number of exceptions to this rule but it is a good discipline to follow even if you are not bound by it. Just as war is conducting policy by other means litigation can be said to be conducting business by other means. Just as you would plan and review any other type of expenditure with defined objectives so you should with dispute resolution. Circumstances can change in litigation just as they can in other transactions and you have to be sufficiently flexible and astute to adjust quickly to changing circumstances which may require settlement, some other form of dispute resolution or even discontinuance in certain circumstances.

6.  Choose the Right Forum for the Resolution of your Dispute
There are many forums for the resolution of IP disputes. There are the courts of England and Wales, those of other parts of the UK and the courts and tribunals of other countries. There are also Intellectual Property Office tribunals for some patent, trade mark and registered and unregistered designs disputes, the Boards of Appeal of OHIM (the EU design and trade mark registry) and the EPO (European Patent Office). There are the domain dispute resolution panels for the determination of generic and national top level domain name disputes. There are the IPO examiners' opinions which I have mentioned above for certain patent disputes and there will soon be an opinions service for registered and unregistered design disputes. There is also old fashioned arbitration and mediation. Each of those forums has its advantages and disadvantages and you should seek specialist advice or at the very least carry out extensive research before launching proceedings.

7.  Choose the Right Legal Adviser
For most cases two sets of skills are needed:

• advocacy, and
• the ability to conduct litigation.

Advocacy includes presenting cases to a judge or arbitrator, examining witnesses, drafting statements of case, application notices, witness statements and skeleton arguments. Until the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 higher court advocacy was the preserve of barristers but now other professionals have rights of audience. Conducting litigation means corresponding with the court and other side, filing and serving statements of case and other documents, interviewing witnesses, drawing up lists of, and exchanging, documents (including emails, texts and other electronic messages) and generally preparing the case for adjudication. Traditionally this work was done by solicitors but now barristers and patent and trade mark attorneys as well as other professionals can apply for the right to conduct litigation. Look beyond law firms' websites and brochures to discover expertise. Try to research their decided cases and publications and choose the advocate and litigator whose expertise most closely matches your needs.

8.  Do not fight Unnecessary Battles

If you are a claimant and you think the other side will not be able to compensate you in damages if you win your case you may get an order from the court known as an "interim injunction" forbidding the defendant from doing something that would infringe your IP rights until trial or further order. These are in the discretion of the court and they don't come cheap. You have to apply quickly and promise to compensate the other side for any loss or damage it may sustain if it transpires that you should never have got the order. Conversely, if you are a defendant and fear the other side can't pay your costs if you win you can get an order for the claimant to pay funds into court as security for a costs order against you. There are many other interim applications that you can make - summary judgment on the basis that the other side is unlikely to prevail at trial, specific disclosure of a document, striking out parts of the other side's statement of case and sanctions for non-compliance with a rule or order. Such applications are very expensive and can delay the progress of a case. Sometimes they are necessary but as often as not they are not and every effort should be made to avoid them. If you are a defendant do not resist reasonable requests just for the sake of it. Work out ways of meeting the other side's legitimate needs while safeguarding your interests.

9.  Comply with the Rules and Directions of the Court

This may sound like stating the obvious but it is amazing how many litigants fail to do this. The courts have extensive powers to penalize some of which are quite drastic. For instance if you fail to file a costs budget in time you will be deemed to have filed a budget requesting reimbursement only of your court fees and you will be precluded from recovering your counsel and solicitors' fees which could amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds.

10. Keep Talking

Even if settlement negotiations fail you are still likely to have much to discuss with the other side. It is in your interest to agree facts, define and limit issues and other procedural matters because it simplifies the process and reduces the bills you may well have to pay. One of the reasons for instructing solicitors and counsel is to keep open a channel of communication between the parties. As I said above, circumstances can change for both sides and you are more likely to learn of those changes if you keep in touch with your opponents.

If you want to discuss this or any other matter connected with enforcement give me a ring on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or message me through my contact form. You can also contact me through Facebook, G+. Linkedin, twitter or Xing.

If you think someone has infringed your patent talk to a lawyer first

Royal Courts of Justice

Litigation is supposed to be the last resort for any kind of dispute including those over patents or other types of intellectual property. For most cases the first step towards settlement it a complaint to the person who has harmed you with a request to stop and maybe a request for compensation. However if you do that in certain types of intellectual property disputes that could land you in a whole heap of trouble.

That is because s.70 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 provides:

"Where a person (whether or not the proprietor of, or entitled to any right in, a patent) by circulars, advertisements or otherwise threatens another person with proceedings for any infringement of a patent, a person aggrieved by the threats (whether or not he is the person to whom the threats are made) may, subject to subsection (4) below, bring proceedings in the court against the person making the threats, claiming any relief mentioned in subsection (3) below."

There are similar provisions in other enactments relation to design rights, registered designs, Community designs and trade marks including Community trade marks.

The relief to which s,70 (3) and the corresponding provisions of the other statutes and statutory instruments refer is:

"(a) a declaration or declarator to the effect that the threats are unjustifiable;
(b) an injunction or interdict against the continuance of the threats; and
(c) damages in respect of any loss which the claimant or pursuer has sustained by the threats."

Those damages can be heavy. In SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd. and Others [2014] EWHC 2084 (IPEC) Judge Hacon awarded damages of £40,500 against those who had threatened patent infringement proceedings against the distributor of a competing product and a well kn own shopping channel.

The threat need not be formal, explicit or even uncivil but it must be such as to leave a reasonable persob in no doubt as to the consequences of non-compliance.  In Luna Advertising Co Ltd v Burnham & Co. (1928) RPC 258 one of the defendant's reps visited a customer of the claimant and complained that a sign exhibited outside the customer's premises infringed his boss's patent and asked for it be removed. Granting an injunction against the defendant Mr Justice Clauson said

“I think that an interview of this kind … between business men, although nobody speaks of solicitors and writs, has no real meaning except to convey … that the threatener has legal rights and means to enforce them … in the way in which they are naturally enforced, i.e. by legal proceedings.”

Lawyers and patent and trade mark attorneys have to be particularly careful because they have no special protection merely because they are carrying out their clients' instructions.

There are however a number of exceptions and defences in the Act.

First, and most obviously "the person aggrieved" who may be the person to whom the threat is made or his or her supplier will not prevail against the person making the threat if that person can show that the conduct of which he or she complained would infringe a patent. However, a new subsection (2A) inserted by s.12 of the Patents Act 2004 now provides that the person aggrieved will still win if he or she can show that the patent was invalid in a relevant respect unless the person making the threat can show that at the time he she made the threat that person did not know and had no reason to suspect that the patent was invalid. As you might expect a lot of complex and expensive litigation begins with an action  for groundless threats, a counterclaim by the defendant for patent infringement and a counterclaim to the counterclaim for revocation of the patent.

Another exception is provided by s.70 (4):

"Proceedings may not be brought under this section for -
(a) a threat to bring proceedings for an infringement alleged to consist of making or importing a product for disposal or of using a process, or
(b) a threat, made to a person who has made or imported a product for disposal or used a process, to bring proceedings for an infringement alleged to consist of doing anything else in relation to that product or process."

This subsection was also amended by the 2004 Act. Until the subsection was changed threats to bring proceedings in respect of making or importing an allegedly infringing product were excepted but not threats in respect of other acts. Consequently patentees and their lawyers had to be very careful when corresponding with businesses that made or imported and distributed the allegedly infringing product. Needless to say they still have to be careful when dealing with distributors or other intermediaries of an allegedly infringing product.

Yet another amendment brought about by the 2004 Act was made to s.70 (5).  The subsection now reads:

"For the purposes of this section a person does not threaten another person with proceedings for infringement of a patent if he merely -
(a) provides factual information about the patent,
(b) makes enquiries of the other person for the sole purpose of discovering whether, or by whom, the patent has been infringed as mentioned in subsection (4)(a) above, or
(c) makes an assertion about the patent for the purpose of any enquiries so made."

Thus, merely sending a specification to an alleged infringer is not a threat but patentees have to be careful how they respond to any reply. If the recipient of the specification asks "Why have you sent me this?" it is important not to reply "Because you have infringed the patent" or words to similar effect.  In settlement negotiations or mediation parties often mention the possibility of litigation when trying to persuade the other side to make concessions. If uttered in any other context such statements would be actionable threats but the Court of Appeal has held in Unilever plc v. The Procter & Gamble Company [2000] F.S.R. 344 that threats made in bona fide settlement negotiations cannot be referred to in subsequent proceedings. However, the negotiations must be genuine. Merely heading a threatening letter "without prejudice" will not do (see Kooltrade Ltd v XTS Ltd [2001] FSR 344, [2001] ADR LR 7/11).

Supplementing the amended s.70 (5) the 2004 Act inserted a new subsection (6) into s.70 of the 1977 Act which provides yet another defence:

"In proceedings under this section for threats made by one person (A) to another (B) in respect of an alleged infringement of a patent for an invention, it shall be a defence for A to prove that he used his best endeavours, without success, to discover -

(a) where the invention is a product, the identity of the person (if any) who made or (in the case of an imported product) imported it for disposal;
(b) where the invention is a process and the alleged infringement consists of offering it for use, the identity of a person who used the process;
(c) where the invention is a process and the alleged infringement is an act falling within section 60(1)(c) above, the identity of the person who used the process to produce the product in question;

and that he notified B accordingly, before or at the time of making the threats, identifying the endeavours used."

S.70 does not apply to threats to sue abroad unless the person making the threat threatens proceedings in this country too.  Other Commonwealth and a few former Commonwealth countries such as the Republic of Ireland have similar provisions in their patent laws but the United States does not. A few countries actually go further than the UK in that they provide an action for groundless threats for copyright infringement.

There have been calls from time to time by various interest groups to abolish this cause of action and this legislation has been considered recently by the Law Commission. In their report Patents Trade Marks and Designs: Groundless Threats the Law Commission recommended that the cause of action be retained but that the law should be reformed to permit some communication with distributors and lawyers and patent and trade mark attorneys should be exempted from liability.

Threats actions in respect of threats of patent, registered design and registered Community design infringement proceedings should be brought in the Patents Court or the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court ("IPEC"). Proceedings in respect of trade marks, unregistered designs or unregistered Community designs can also be brought in IPEC or the Intellectual Property list of the Chancery Division or any country court that is attached to a chancery district registry such as Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool or Newcastle.

Having cut my teeth in intellectual property litigation in the North of England I have probably seen more threats actions than most members of the intellectual property bar. I was counsel in one of the leading cases on this cause of action. This is a complex area of law in which you can easily get into trouble. If anybody wants to discuss this article or any instance where a threat has been made he or she should not hesitate to call me on 020 7404 5252 during normal office hours or complete my contact form. I am also on twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, G+ and Xing.

Patent Litigation Funding: HLP3 enters the Market

Although it no longer costs anything like as much as it once did to bring a patent infringement claim it is still too much for many individual inventors and small businesses. The small claims track which I discussed in "Soon there will be a Remedy if Someone steals your Idea" on 19 Sept 2012 does not cover litigation relating to patents, registered or registered Community designs, semiconductor topographies or plant varieties.

Ideally a patentee should take out intellectual property insurance before a dispute arises and I have written lots of articles on IP insurance in this blog and elsewhere (see "IP Insurance Five Years On" 23 Oct 2010).  Unfortunately, IP insurance premiums are not cheap and many patent attorneys are sceptical as to the value of the cover.   Consequently many inventors and small businesses cannot afford to fund challenges to their patents.

Some patentees who choose not to take out patent insurance do so in the hope that some law firm or counsel will take their case on a "no win no fee" retainer.   While there are lots of lawyers who will undertake personal injuries litigation on that basis there are very few who will do intellectual property cases without an assured fee for the reasons I explained in "No Win No Fee" (NIPC website on the 14 July 2011).  There will be even fewer such cases after the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 takes effect. For very much the same reasons it is hard to get after-the-event insurance ("ATE") for intellectual property cases.   Premiums are high and will be irrecoverable under the new Act.

For some types of litigation, third party funding may offer a solution.   I discussed that option in "Litigation Funding for IP Claims" on 18 Sept 2012.  The latest refinement is HLP3 which was brought to my attention by Peter Rouse.   Peter, who practised IP law for many years, is now working as a consultant with US firm HLP Integration who have brought together funding from Caprica and the legal expertise of Olswang to prosecute patent infringement claims where there is a good prospect of success.   A press release dated 30 Oct 2012 explains how the scheme works:

"In return for an admission fee of £3500 HLP Integration carry out validity, infringement and financial analysis and provide a detailed report. If the results of that report are promising then the report will be sent to Patent Counsel who will carry out an assessment of the prospects of success in patent proceedings. If those prospects meet the required percentage chance of success then the case will pass to ATE insurers for a further risk assessment. If ATE insurance is approved then the patent owner can exercise an option agreement, entered into at the outset, requiring Caprica to fund the proposed litigation. From beginning to end this process is expected to take no more than 3-4 months. In summary: a modest payment per patent; a robust and thorough process of analysis, expert review and risk assessment; and an option agreement exercisable at the patent owner’s discretion for qualifying patents."

Since it is likely to cost at least as much as £3,500 for patent counsel and specialist solicitors to evaluate a claim the admission fee seems almost a bargain.   .

Should any patentee wish to discuss any of these methods of funding he or she may call me on 0161 850 0080 or send me a message through my contact form. Readers can also follow me on Facebook, Linkedin, twitter or Xing..