FCDO Ukraine IP Court Project 2 - Queen Mary University of ...

FCDO Ukraine IP Court Project 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

About the Project

Foreword

About the Project Team

Acknowledgments

List of Abbreviations

Executive Summary of Final Recommendations

1.1. Recommendations on the Establishment and Effective Functioning of the IP Court

1.2. Recommendations Regarding Certain Provisions of the Rules of Procedure

Introduction

I. Creation of the Specialised IP Court in Ukraine

1.1. Legal framework on the establishment of the IP Court in Ukraine

1.1.1. Developments leading to the establishment of the IP Court in Ukraine

1.2. Judicial reform in Ukraine and the establishment of the IP Court

II. The Final Recommendations

2.1. Recommendations on the Establishment and Effective Functioning of the IP Court

2.1.1. Recommendations on the structure of the IP Court

2.1.2. Recommendations on the selection criteria of IP judges

2.1.2.1 Recommendation on the selection criteria for judges at the Appellate Chamber 2.1.2.2. RecommendationonthespecificselectioncriteriaforIPjudges

2.1.3. Recommendation on the location of the IP Court

2.1.4. Recommendations on the number of judges

2.2. Recommendations regarding certain provisions of the rules of procedure

TABL

E O

F CO

NTE

NTS

4

6

12

13

14

16

16

17

21

21

22

23

23

23

24

2425

27

29

20

19

30

FCDO Ukraine IP Court Project3

2.2.1. Recommendations on the collegial consideration of IP cases in the IP Court

2.2.2. Recommendations on the jurisdiction of the IP Court

2.2.2.1. Recommendations regarding the potential overlap between thejurisdictionsoftheIPCourtandtheadministrativecourts 2.2.2.2. Recommendations on the potential overlap between thejurisdictionsoftheIPCourtandotherstateauthorities 2.2.2.3 Recommendations on the disputes that are not included inArticle20(2)CPC

2.2.3. Recommendations regarding evidence in IP cases

2.2.3.1. Recommendations regarding evidence in an electronic formunderArticle96(2)CPC 2.2.3.2. Recommendations regarding the power of the court to appoint anexpertunilaterallyunderarticle99(3)CPC

2.2.4. Recommendations on a preliminary injunctive relief in IP cases

2.2.4.1. Recommendations on the grounds for granting a preliminary injunctivereliefunderArticle136(2)CPC 2.2.4.2. Recommendations regarding potential uncertainty in relation to the procedure for applying for preliminary injunctions before submitting a lawsuit 2.2.4.3. Recommendationsoncross-undertakingunderArticles139-141CPC 2.2.4.4. Recommendations on the revocation of preliminary injunctive reliefsunderArticle145(1)CPC

2.2.5. Recommendations on security for costs

2.2.6. RecommendationsontheCPC’ssimplifiedprocedures that are currently unavailable for natural persons

2.2.7. Recommendationsonthelackofcassationforinsignificantcases

III Conclusions to the Final Recommendations

IV. Road Map on Implementing the Recommendations on the Improvements of Ukrainian Law Related to the Establishment and Operation of the IP Court in Ukraine

Annex 1: Online training programme for the Ukrainian Judiciary on International IP Law and Practice

Annex 2: Comparative Study of Best Practices in Leading IP Jurisdictions

TABL

E O

F CO

NTE

NTS

31

31

36

37

37

38

38

38

4041

42

43

43

44

46

47

53

61

35

30


ABOUT THE PROJECT

The Project has been implemented by the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London(CCLS)withthesupportfromtheUKGovernment’sForeignCommonwealthandDevelopmentOfficeand the UK Embassy in Kyiv. The Project commenced in March 2018 and has provided assistance to the Government of Ukraine with the creation of a new IP Court that matches the best international practices and standards. The main areas of the Project’s work were the preparation of the Project’s Recommendations and Road Map on legislative and procedural changes necessary for the effective operation of the new IP court and the delivery of an advanced training programme on international IP law and practice for current and future IP judges in Ukraine.

CCLShasbrought togethera teamofsenioracademicsandresearchers includingProjectCo-Directors,ProfessorIoannisKokkorisandDrNoamShemtov,ProjectManagerMsMariaTymofienkoandResearchCoordinatorDrOlgaGurgula. The research team included international andUkrainian experts includingJudgeMoskalenko,DrAnnaStefan,MrMaciejPadamczyk,MsMarieWhite,MsAlinaTrapova,MsLisaMariaUlrikeSchuldes,MrGerhardusHartman,MrStanislasLabonne.TheProjecthasalsobeenassistedbylocalcoordinatorinUkraineMsOlenaVardamatska.

TheProject teamhasbenefited from invaluable advice froma specially created InternationalAdvisoryBoard(IAB),chairedbyLordNeuberger,formerPresidentoftheUKSupremeCourt.OthermembersoftheIABincludewell-knowninternationalandUkrainianjudgesandexperts,namelytheRightHonourableLordKitchin,JusticeoftheSupremeCourt(UK),HisHonourJudgeHacon,PresidingJudgeoftheIntellectualProperty and Enterprise Court (UK); His Honour Michael Fysh QC SC, Intellectual Property chambersin Lincoln’s Inn (UK); Professor Spyros Maniatis, Director of the British Institute of International andComparative Law (BIICL, UK); Professor SirWilliam Blair, formerly presiding Judge of the CommercialCourt (UK); Bogdan Lvov, Vice-President of the Supreme Court, President of the Economic CassationCourt(Ukraine);MrIgorBenedysiuk,JudgeoftheSupremeCourt(Ukraine);DrOlenaOrliuk,DirectoroftheScientificResearchInstituteofIntellectualPropertyofNationalAcademyofLawSciencesofUkraine(Ukraine);HonorableKathleenM.O’Malley,USCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit(US);MrPierreVéron,Member of theParisBar,HonoraryPresident EuropeanPatent LawyersAssociation (EPLAW) (France);JudgeRianKalden,DutchCourtofAppeal(Netherlands);Dr.KlausBacher,Presidingjudge,X.CivilSenate(PatentLaw),GermanFederalCourtofJustice(Germany);MrWilliamChandler,Chairman,TechnicalBoardofAppeal,EuropeanPatentOffice(EU);Prof.Dr.iur.J.D.,LL.M.AlexanderVonMuhlendahl,Attorney-at-LawatBardehlePagenberg(Germany).

The Project’s Recommendations and Road Map were prepared on the basis of a gap analysis of theUkrainianlegislationandcourtprocedureaswellasextensiveconsultationswithstakeholdersinUkrainethroughseminars,roundtables,face-to-faceandwritteninterviews.TheFinalRecommendationsarealsobasedonacomparativestudyofthekeyIPjurisdictions,namelytheUS,theUK,Germany,FranceandtheNetherlands,whichhasbeenpreparedaspartoftheProject.MembersoftheIABhaveprovidedinvaluablefeedbackandcommentsduringthepreparationoftheFinalRecommendationsandRoadMap.

ABOUTTH

EPR

OJECT


TheProject teamhasvisitedUkraineonmanyoccasionsduring the twoandahalfyeardurationof theProjectandhascreatedacontinuousandproductivedialoguewithkeystakeholdersinUkraineincludingtherepresentativesofthePresident’sOffice,theParliament,theSupremeCourt,theHighCouncilofJustice,theHighQualificationCommissionofJudgesandtheNationalSchoolofJudgesaswellasrepresentativesofthebusinessandlawyersassociationssuchastheUkrainianNationalBarAssociation,theAssociationofLawyersofUkraine,andtheEuropeanandAmericanChambersofCommerce.TheProjectTeamhasliaisedcloselywithcivilsocietyorganisationsandtheinternationalpartnersincludingtheBritishembassyinKyiv,theEUDelegationandtheUSembassyinKyiv,whoaresupportingjudicialreforminUkraine.

TheProjecthasdeliveredanadvancedthree-weekonlinetrainingprogrammeoninternationalIPlawandpracticeto100currentandfutureIPjudgesaswellasmembersoftheAppealChamberoftheIPOffice.Thetrainerswhodeliveredtheprogrammeareinternationallyacclaimedandwell-knownIPjudges,academicsand practitioners. The participants gave a very high appraisal scores and positive feedback on the usefulness of the training towards their day-to-day duties and their commitment to implementing the knowledge and skillsobtainedinthecourseofthetrainingtoimprovethestandardsofIPadjudicationinUkraine.

TheRecommendationsandtheRoadMapprovidetheGovernmentofUkrainewithaguidanceonsettingupasuccessfulandeffectiveIPCourtwhich,ifimplemented,willbeinstrumentalinassistingUkrainewithestablishing an adequate level of IP protection according to international best practices and Ukraine’sobligations under the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement and TRIPS Agreement. The IP Court will bethe essential step in creating professional, transparent and predictable IP adjudication in Ukraine thatwill contribute to improved levels of business confidence, more attractive investment conditions anddevelopmentof a commercial environment that incentivises innovationandcreativity,while stimulatingeconomic growth and prosperity.

ABOUTTH

EPR

OJECT


FORE

WORD FOREWORD

TheUnitedKingdom’sjudiciaryhasalonghistoryandplaysacentralroleinourpoliticalsystemandeconomiclife.ItalsoplaysaroleabroadandthechoiceofinternationalbusinessestoresolveandsettletheirdisputesinUKcourtsistestamenttothejudiciary’sreliability,expertise,professionalism,and independence.

As part of Britain’s role as a force for good in the world, the Foreign,Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) looks for opportunities topromote an exchange of knowledge and skills between judges and legal professionals so as to assist with judicial reform and strengthen the rule of law.

IamdelightedthatourembassyinKyivhasbeenabletosupportUkraineinthisregardthroughourpartnershipwithQueenMaryUniversityofLondonfocussingonintellectualpropertylawandthecreationofaHighIntellectualPropertyCourt.

Thecompletionof thisprojectand report isparticularly timely,asour twocountrieshave justsignedahistoric Political, Free Trade and Strategic Partnership Agreement which will open new avenues fordeepening cooperation between our governments, businesses, and people and the creation of a HighIntellectualPropertyCourtwillservetoacceleratetheseexchanges.

Intellectualpropertylawiscloselylinkedtocreativity,innovation,economicgrowth,andprosperity,butthesebenefitswillonlymaterialiseifintellectualpropertylawisproperlyenforcedbyindependentcourts.Ukrainehasthrivingtechnologyandcreativesectorsandthereissignificantpotentialforthesetogrow,aswellasroomformuchhigherlevelsofforeigninvestment,buttheseindustrieswillnotgrowasfastastheycould,norwilltheymoveupthevaluechain,withoutastrongsystemofintellectualpropertylawenforcement.WhenIspeaktoBritishinvestors,Iknowthatthejudiciaryandlegalprotectionoftheir investmentsandintellectual property rights are amongst their primary concerns.

Wehope that theworkundertakenwith theguidanceof thedistinguished InternationalAdvisoryBoard,consistingofinternationaljudgesandexpertsandchairedbyformerPresidentoftheUK’sSupremeCourtLordNeuberger,willassistUkrainetoestablishatrulysuccessfulHighIntellectualPropertyCourt.ThiswillbeapositivesigntointernationalinvestorsandpartnersthatUkraineisopenforbusiness.Ialsohopethattheinnovativeonlinetraining,whichwasledbyrenownedexpertsinthefieldandcoveredawiderangeofessentialtopics,willequipcurrentandfutureintellectualpropertyjudgesinUkrainewithfurtherskillstostrengthen intellectual property rights and support the country’s economic development.

TheUnitedKingdom isproud tohave funded this initiativeandwewill continue to support reformandstrengtheningofUkraine’sjudiciary.IwouldliketothankQueenMaryUniversityofLondonforalltheirhardworkandexpertise,withoutwhichthisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossible.

Sincerelyyours,MelindaSimmons

Her Excellency Melinda Simmons UK Ambassador to Ukraine


FORE

WORDFOREWORD

Itishardtoover-estimatetheimportancetoacountryofhavingatopqualitycadreofrespectedandtrustedIPjudges.AreliableandrespectedIPcourtsystem,whichisexpert,efficientandeffective, isofenormousvaluetoacountry,bothnationallyandinternationally,andintermsofitscontributionto the political health and economic prosperity.

IthasbeenmypleasuretochairtheInternationalAdvisoryBoard,setupbytheCentreforCommercialLawStudiesatQueenMaryUniversityofLondon,to assist the Government of Ukraine to achieve its ambition to set up aworld-classIPCourt.IwouldliketothankeachandeverymemberofourdistinguishedBoardforsharingtheirextensiveknowledge,experienceandadvicetohelpUkrainecreateafair,professionalandindependentsystemofIPadjudication.

I have had the pleasure of visiting Ukraine on several occasions and IhavefounditveryencouragingtomeetUkrainianIPjudgesandcandidatejudges, experts and officials. They all demonstrated their commitmentanddeterminationtocreateanIPCourtthatwillfollowandapplythebestinternationalpracticesandprocedures,andwillconsequentlyplayavitalpart in supporting the development and expansion of the creative and innovativesectorsoftheUkrainianeconomy.

Throughoutmyjudicialcareer,whichculminatedinbeingPresidentoftheUKSupremeCourt,Ihavebeenafirmbelieverinthepropositionthatindependent,competent,andrespectedjudgesadministeringjusticefor all in open court impartially and free of outside pressures is the most fundamental feature of the rule of law. And the rule of law is in turn fundamental to a modern civilised society. But it is also fundamental to economicsuccess.Peoplewillbeveryreluctanttoinvestinbusinessesinacountrywheretheycannottrustthegovernmentnottoconfiscatetheirpropertyandcannottrustthecourtstoenforcetheircontractualandother rights according to the law.

Theneedforinternationalconfidenceinacountry’scourtssystemisevermoreimportantinanincreasinglyglobalworld,andthatisespeciallytrueinthefieldofIntellectualProperty.AllareasofIP,notjustpatents,butalsointhisageofelectronicglobalcommunications,trademarks,designrightandcopyright,areactuallyorpotentiallyinternationalintheirreach.AndtheimportanceandvalueofIPrightsismorefundamentalthanevertomanybusinesses,andIPprotectionisthereforeavitalfactorfor investors.Accordingly,sensiblenationalIPlawsadministeredbyexpert,independent,respectedIPjudgessittingintrustedcourtswhoseordersareenforced,isvitalforanycountryseekingtobe,andtobeseenasbeing,asuccessfulfunctioning21stcenturydemocracyandasuccessfulandthrivingeconomy.AndthisisespeciallyimportantforUkrainewith its proud record of innovative ideas and inventions.

Iandall themembersoftheInternationalAdvisoryBoardhopethatoureffortsandassistancewill leadtotangibleresultsandthattheprocessofsettingupthe IPCourtwillbefinalisedandtheCourtwillbeoperationalsoon.WehopethatinthenearfuturethejudgesofthenewIPcourtwillformahighlyrespectedpart of the European and International judges’ community sharing their experience and challengesincreatinga fairandstrongsystemofenforcementof IPrights for thebenefitofdynamic,creativeandinnovativesectorsofUkrainianeconomy.

Sincerelyyours,LordNeuberger

Lord NeubergerChairman of the International Advisory Board, Ukraine IP Court Project, formerly the President of the UK Supreme Court


FORE

WORD FOREWORD

With this letter I would like to expressmy respect and sincere gratitudefor the work completed to improve the legislation on intellectual property rightsprotection inUkrainewithin the frameworkof theUKFCDOQueenMaryUniversityProjecttosupporttheestablishmentandoperationoftheIntellectualPropertyCourtinUkraine.

I would like to especially thank the organisers for delivering the onlinetraining on the practical issues of intellectual property law enforcement,whichtookplaceinJulyandSeptemberthisyear,withanaudienceofmorethan100judgesandlawyersfromdifferentpartsofUkraine.

As isprovenbythe internationalexperience,effective lawenforcement isonly possible when there is a specialised court.

On29September2017,thePresidentofUkrainesignedtheDecree«OntheEstablishmentoftheHighCourtofIntellectualProperty».

HavingestablishedtheHighCourtofIntellectualProperty,Ukrainefollowedtheinternationaltrendinmanycountries,whereintellectualpropertycasesareconsideredbyspecialisedcourts.Asweknowtherearearound90countriesintheworldthathavespecialisedIPcourts.Althoughsuchcourtsareestablishedindifferentlegal,economic,culturalandhistoricalbackgrounds,theaimofcreatingsuchacourtisthesame:tostrengthenthespecialisationofjudgesinintellectualpropertylawdisputes,toensuretheharmonisationofcourtpractice,toimprovethepredictabilityoflitigationinintellectualpropertyrightsdisputes,aswellastoreducetherisksofjudicialfailure,thusensuringaduelevelofprotectionandenforcementofintellectualpropertyrights.

Today it is extremely important to accelerate the completion of the selection of judges to the HighCourtofIntellectualPropertyandtostart itsoperationwithoutfurtherdelayandaddressthenecessaryorganisational,financialandlogisticalissuesassociatedwiththeoperationoftheCourt.Inordertoachievethis,theVerkhovnaRadaofUkraine,theParliamentofUkraine,includedinitsAgendaoflegislativeactivitiestheprioritytoadopttheLawofUkraine«OntheHighCourtofIntellectualProperty»,which shall determine its legal status and organisational principles of its operation as a new institution of theUkrainianjudicialsystem.

In this regard, it is necessary to implement the Final Recommendations the on improvement of theUkrainianlegislation,preparedbytheProjectrelatedtotheestablishmentandoperationoftheHighCourtofIntellectualPropertyinUkrainewiththeassistancefromtheForeignCommonwealthandDevelopmentOfficeoftheUnitedKingdom.

It isalsoimportanttopointoutthatwefullysupporttheapproachthattheProject’sRecommendationsareaimedat improvingfutureproceduresoftheHighCourtof IntellectualProperty,whiletheongoingselectionofjudgestotheHighCourtofIntellectualPropertyinUkraineshouldbecompletedaccordingtotheexistentprocedure.

Inrelationtotheabove,Iwouldliketoemphasiseonceagaintheimportanceforconductingsuchtrainingprogrammes,whichareaimedatexchangingexperiencewith international fellowjudgesanddeepeningtheknowledgeofthejudgeswhoconsiderintellectualpropertydisputesinUkraine,aswellasfurthertheprofessional education of judges.

WegreatlyappreciatetheinitiativetoprovidetechnicalassistancefortheestablishmentoftheHighCourtofIntellectualPropertyandwouldliketoexpressoursinceregratitudetotheUKGovernment,AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United Kingdom Ms Melinda Simmons and members of theInternationalAdvisoryBoardchairedbyLordNeuberger.

Sincerelyyours,RuslanStefanchuk

Dr Ruslan StefanchukFirst Deputy Speakerof the Parliament of Ukraine


FORE

WORDFOREWORD

IwouldliketocongratulatetheorganisersandparticipantsoftheProject.

ItiswithgreatpleasurethatIwouldliketotakethisopportunitytosharewith you my thoughts and thank you for the completed work.

The cooperation with the International Advisory Board, chaired by LordNeuberger,hasbeenanextraordinaryandvaluableexperience.

Iwould like toexpressmy respect for yoursupportof thedevelopmentofthejudicialsystemandthelegislationofUkraine,whichrelatestotheestablishmentoftheHighCourtofIntellectualProperty,andyoureffortsin this regard!

TheProject team, inparticular the InternationalAdvisoryBoard,carriedout a great amount of creative work, which was incorporated into theRecommendationsontheImprovementsofUkrainianLawRelatedtotheEstablishmentandOperationoftheIPCourtinUkraineandtheregulationof its operation by relevant procedural rules.

MycolleaguesandIhavecarefullystudiedthisdocument,includingtheRoadMapfortheimplementationof the Recommendations.

IwouldliketotakethisopportunitytohighlighttherelevanceoftheRecommendationsinparticularonthefollowingissues:injunctions,theeliminationofapotentialconflictofjurisdictionsbetweentheHighCourtofIntellectualPropertyandadministrativecourts,aswellasotherstateinstitutions;ensuringtherightsofphysical persons in the commercial litigation process.

The implementation of some of the Recommendations will require additional comprehensive research of the provisionsoftheCommercialCodeofProcedure,otherprocedurallawsandcaselawoftheSupremeCourt.

However,IampleasedtopointoutthatsomeoftheissuesraisedintheRecommendationshavealreadybeen resolved by amendments to the current legislation.

Itisalsoworthmentioningnowadaystheimportanceofhavingthepossibilitytoconducthearingsthroughvideoconference,althoughthesechangeshavenotbeenimplementedyetlargelyduetotechnologicallaggingbehindinUkraine,butitisverymuchourambitiontohavevideo-conferencingavailabletotheparties.

Imustalsomentionthehighimportanceoftheonlinetrainingandtesting.Thiswasastimulatingopportunityto test one’s knowledge outside the usual scope of cases and expand the existing knowledge by learning from international experience.

Itwasparticularlyrelevantfornewjudgesandcandidatejudges,whoIhopeinthenearestfuturewillbecomejudges. Such training delivered by international experts has been an extraordinary opportunity to gain new knowledge and improve their expertise in the area of intellectual property law.

IsincerelyhopethatitwillbeonlyashorttimebetweenthecompletionoftheRecommendationsandtheiractualimplementation,andIamconfidentthattheeffortsoftheProjectwillcontributetothestartoftheoperationoftheHighCourtofIntellectualPropertyinthenearestfuture.

Iwishyouallsuccessandhealth!

Sincerelyyours,BogdanLvov

Judge Bogdan LvovVice-President of the Supreme Court and Head of the Economic Cassation Court


FORE

WORD FOREWORD

ThisyearwearecelebratingTHE40thAnniversaryof theCentre forCommercialLawStudies (CCLS)atQueenMaryUniversity.WearebasedintheheartofLondon’slegaldistrictatLincolnsInnFields,surroundedbylegalchambersandtheRoyalCourtsofJustice.AtCCLSwefocusondeliveringpostgraduateeducation,continuing professional training as well as cutting-edge research. Our approach is unique as we are bringing togetherworld-classacademicsandleadingpractitioners,whodelivertrainingonthemostpertinentandpractical issuesfacedbybusinesses, legalprofessionals, judgesandgovernmentsaroundtheworld.Bybringingacademiaandpracticetogether,CCLShasbecomeaworldleaderincommerciallawandresearchtrainingstudents,professionals,judgesandgovernmentofficialsonvariousaspectsofcommerciallaw.

CCLShoststheQueenMaryIntellectualPropertyResearchInstitute(QMIPRI),whichisoneoftheworld’sleading institution that undertakes research and advocacy in intellectual property law and related areas of commerciallaw.QMIPRIhasprovidedadviceandconsultingworkformanyinternationalorganisationssuchasWIPO,UNCTAD,UKGovernment,theEuropeanParliament,theEuropeanPatentOfficeandtheEuropeanCommission as well as for non-governmental organisations.

CCLSalsohasavibrantPhDresearchcommunitythatbringstogetherresearchersfromacrosstheworld.WeareveryproudofoneofourPhDCandidates,MsMariaTymofienko,whoinitiatedtheapproachforthistechnicalassistanceprojecttoassisttheGovernmentofUkrainewithsettingupitsIntellectualPropertyCourt,fundedbytheUKGovernment.MariahasbeenmanagingtheProjectsinceitslaunchin2018andplayedavitalrolenavigatingthecomplexstakeholderrelationshipsinthefluidpoliticalenvironmentofUkraine.

TheProject researchwascoordinatedbyCCLSPhDGraduateDrOlgaGurgulawhomanageda teamofinternationalexpertsandresearchersincludingCCLSLLMstudentsandUkrainianexperts.BeforeembarkingonherPhDatCCLS,OlgahasbeenapracticingIPlawyerinUkraineandherunderstandingandexperienceofthecomplexitiesoftheUkrainianlegalsystemhasbeeninvaluabletotheProject.

TheProjectTeamalsogreatlybenefitedfromtheadviceoftheInternationalAdvisoryBoard,chairedbyLordNeuberger,formerPresidentoftheUKSupremeCourt.Ithasbeenauniqueandfascinatingexperiencetodrawonexpertiseofleadinginternationaljudgesandexperts,whogenerouslyprovidedtheirtimeandadvicehelpingusdevelopourProject’sRecommendationsfortheGovernmentofUkrainetakingintoaccountthemostuptodateinternationalpracticesonIPadjudicationtailoredforUkraine’slegalandcourtssystem.

Dr Noam ShemtovCo-Director, Ukraine IP Court Project,Reader in Intellectual Property andTechnology Law (CCLS, Queen Mary University of London)

Professor Ioannis KokkorisCo-Director, Ukraine IP Court Project, Chair in Law and Economics (CCLS, Queen Mary University of London)


FORE

WORD

The Project team adapted to the enormous challenges faced by Covid-19 pandemic and ensured thesuccessfuldeliveryofthetrainingprogrammeforover100UkrainianIPjudges,candidatestothenewIPCourtandmembersoftheAppealChamberattheIPOffice,viaabespokeonlinetrainingplatform.WearedelightedtopresentforyourattentionourFinalProjectreportcoveringtheactivitiesandresultsofourwork over the last two and a half years. The report includes an overview of the reasons behind the creation ofthespecialisedIPCourtinUkraineanditshistory;theProjectRecommendationsandRoadMapthatprovides a comprehensive analysis of the Ukrainian legislation and court proceedings and suggestsways to improve the operation of the new Court. The report also includes an in-depth comparative study of leading international IP jurisdictions,whichwe hopewill provide a useful benchmark forUkraine’sevolvingsystemofIPadjudication.

IthasbeentrulyexcitingandinterestingtoshareourknowledgeandexpertisewithUkraine,acountrywithincredible innovativeandcreativepotential, toenable it toestablishaworldclassIPCourt.WehaveverymuchenjoyedthemanyopportunitiestovisitUkraineandtoengagewithitshighlyprofessionalanddynamicjudicialandlegalcommunity.WehopethatourworkhaslaidasolidfoundationforthecreationofahighlyprofessionalandeffectiveIPCourtthatwillbecomealastingsuccessstoryforUkraineanditsjudiciary.

Sincerelyyours,ProfessorIoannisKokkorisandDrNoamShemtov


ABOUTTH

EPR

OJECT

TEA

M ABOUT THE PROJECT TEAM

Project Director

Professor Ioannis KokkorisChairinLawandEconomics,CCLS,QueenMaryUniversityofLondon

Project Manager

Ms Maria TymofienkoPhDCandidate(QueenMaryUniversityofLondon),LLM(CatholicUniversityofLeuven)

National Expert

Mr Viktor MoskalenkoRetiredJudge,formerlyDeputyHeadoftheHighEconomicCourtofUkraine

Research Assistant

Mr Maciej PadamczykLLMinIP(QueenMaryUniversityofLondon),LLM(UniversityofWarsaw)

Research Assistant

Ms Marie WhiteDPhilinLawcandidate(UniversityofOxford),LLBandLLM(London School of Economics)

International Rapporteur

Gerben HartmanLLM(Stanford),EUMarieSkłodowska-CurieEarlyStage Researcher

Project Director

Dr Noam ShemtovReaderinIntellectualPropertyandTechnologyLaw,CCLS,QueenMaryUniversityofLondon

Project Research Coordinator

Dr Olga GurgulaLecturerinIntellectualProperty,BrunelUniversityLondon,VisitingFellow,OxfordMartinSchool,UniversityofOxford

National Expert

Dr Anna ShtefanHeadofCopyrightandRelatedRightsDepartmentofScientific-ResearchInstituteofIntellectualPropertyofNationalAcademyofLegalSciencesofUkraine

Research Assistant

Ms Alina TrapovaPhDCandidateatBocconiUniversity(Milan)

International Rapporteur

Mr Stanislas Labonne LLM(QueenMaryUniversityofLondon)

Project Coordinator in Ukraine

Ms Olena VardamatskaLLM(TarasShevchenkoNationalUniversity),LLMinIP(UniversitédeNantes,France)


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Wewish to thank theUKForeignCommonwealth andDevelopmentOffice for supporting ourwork andfundingthisProjectandtotheUKAmbassadortoUkraine,HerExcellencyMelindaSimmons,andherteamattheEmbassyinKyiv,whoprovideddiplomaticandstrategicsupportaswellasadvocacyatthehighestgovernmental levels.

Wewouldalso like to thank theMembersof the InternationalAdvisoryBoard (IAB)whohavebeenverygenerouswiththeirtimeandadvicethroughouttheProject. Inparticular,wewouldliketothanktheIABChairman,LordNeuberger,forhishelpestablishingtheBoard,andforhisprofessionalandexpertleadership.

WewishtoexpressourdeepappreciationtoalltheUkrainianIPjudges,expertsandlawyerswhocontributedtothisreportandparticipatedinthediscussionsandroundtablesandwhosharedtheirviews,suggestionsandconcernsinrelationtotheestablishmentofthenewIPCourt.WewouldalsoliketothanktheAmericanChamberofCommerceandtheUkrainianBarAssociationforprovidingaplatformforthesediscussionsandmeetings.WealsoparticularlywishtothankthemanylegalexpertswhogavetheirtimetoanswerourquestionnaireandwhosharedtheirexperienceinrelationtothenewCommercialProceduralCode,whileproviding their own opinions and valuable ideas.

Finally,wearegratefultoMrStefanchuk,FirstDeputySpeakeroftheParliamentofUkraine,MrBogdanLvov,Vice-PresidentoftheSupremeCourtandtheHeadoftheEconomicCassationCourt,MrIhorBenedysiuk,JudgeoftheSupremeCourtandDrOlenaOrliuk,DirectoroftheIPInstituteattheNationalAcademiesofSciencesfortheirdrivingsupportandcommitmenttotheestablishmentofthenewIPCourtinUkraine.

ACKN

OWLEDGMEN

TS


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BGH FederalHighCourtofJustice(‘Bundesgerichtshof’)

BPatG FederalPatentCourt(‘Bundespatentgericht’)

CA CourtofAppeal(‘Courd’appel’)

CAFC Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit

CCA ConstitutionoftheCourtsAct(‘Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz’)

CCP CodeofCivilProcedure(‘Codedeprocédurecivile’)

CDPA Copyright,DesingsandPatentsAct

CJEU CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion

CJO CodeofJudicialOrganisation(‘Codedel’organisationjudicaire’)

CPC CommercialProceduralCodeofUkraine (‘ГосподарськийпроцесуальнийкодексУкраїни)

CPR CivilProcedureRules

DCCP DutchCodeofCivilProcedure(‘WetboekvanBurgerlijkeRechtsvordering’)

ECHR ConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms

ECoHR EuropeanCourtofHumanRights

EU EuropeanUnion

EUIPO EuropeanUnionIntellectualPropertyOffice

EEA European Economic Area

FRAP FederalRulesonAppellateProcedure

FRCP FederalRulesofCivilProcedure

FRE Federal Rules of Evidence

HDC DistrictCourtofTheHague

LIST

OFAB

BREV

IATIONS


ICC InternationalChamberofCommerce

IIPI InternationalIntellectualPropertyInstitute

IP IntellectualProperty

IPC IntellectualPropertyCode(‘Codedelapropriétéintellectuelle’)

IPEC IntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourt

IOP InternalOperatingProceduresoftheCourtofAppealfortheFederalCircuit

LG ‘Landgericht’

PI Preliminaryinjunction

PD PracticeDirection

PQE PostQualificationExperience

RCP RulesofCivilProcedure(‘Zivilprozessordnung’)

OLB ‘Oberlandesgericht‘

TGI ‘Tribunaldegrandeinstance’

TRO Temporary restraining order

TRIPS TheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights

UK UnitedKingdom

UKIPO UnitedKingdomIntellectualPropertyOffice

US UnitedStates

USC UnitedStatesCode

USPTO UnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice

LIST

OFAB

BREV

IATIONS


EXEC

UTIVE

SUMMAR

YOFTH

EFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the comprehensive judicial reform, Ukraine has set out to establish the new specialisedIntellectualPropertyCourt(theIP Court).WhilethecreationoftheIPCourtmaybeconsideredashighlydesirable,ouranalysisofUkrainianLawontheestablishmentoftheIPCourt,andtheprocedurallawthatwillbe applied by this Court (the Ukrainian Report),identifiescertainissuesthatmayimpingeontheeffectivefunctioningofthenewlyestablishedIPCourt.Theseissues,identifiedintheUkrainianLawReport,werefurtheranalysedaspartofourcomparativestudyofbestpracticesinanumberofmatureIPjurisdictions,namely the US, the UK, Germany, France and the Netherlands (the Comparative Study). Based on the findingsof theComparativeStudy, in this report,weoffer recommendations (theRecommendations) on possiblewaystoimprovetheUkrainianlegalframeworkrelatedtotheestablishmentandoperationofthenewIPCourt.1TheRecommendationsconsistoftwoparts:(1)thefirstpartfocusesontheissuesrelatedtotheestablishmentoftheIPCourt,while(2)thesecondpartelaboratesontherecommendationsrelatedto theprocedures that the IPCourtwill apply.TheRecommendations, furthermore, includea roadmapfor implementingtheRecommendations, interalia, throughthechangestotheexistent legalframework,administrative acts or court practice (the Road Map).

1.1. Recommendations on the Establishment and Effective Functioning of the IP Court Accordingto theLawontheJudicialSystem, thenewIPCourtwilloperateas thecourtof thefirstandsecond(appellate)instances.Duetothecreationofthetwojudicial instanceswithinonecourt,wehaveemphasised the importance of implementing certain measures that would guarantee the right to fair trial beforeanindependentandimpartialtribunal;forexample,byphysicallyseparatingthetwoinstances.

The selection criteria for IP judges may also be revised. Specifically, we recommend adjusting theselectioncriteriabyestablishingmorerigorousrequirementsforIPjudgesoftheAppellateChamberthanforthefirstinstanceIPjudges.ThismaybringtheselectioncriteriaforIPjudgesinconformitywiththeprovisionsoftheLawontheJudicialSystem,whichsetsmorerigorousrequirementsforappellatejudgesatallothertypesofcourts.Inaddition,werecommendestablishingageneralrequirementofpossessinganadequateknowledgeinthefieldofIPforallcandidates,whichwouldensurethattheIPCourtcomprisesexperiencedIPjudgeswhowilldeliverhighqualityIPadjudication.However,consideringthecurrentstateofIPspecialisationinUkraineandthefactthatitmaybedifficulttorecruitsufficientnumberofIPexperts,werecommendreservingthepossibilityofappointingjudgesandlawyerswho,whiletheymaynothavean extensive IP experience, nevertheless are highly qualified. In addition, we recommend introducingtheinstitutionof‘scientificadvisors’,i.e.technicalorscientificexperts,whomaybeappointedtoadvisethe court on specificmatterswithin the scope of their expertise. Finally, we recommend consideringthepossibilityofreservingacertainnumberofpostsforIPjudgeswitharelevanttechnicalorscientificbackground.WewouldliketohighlightthattheRecommendationsregardingtherevisionofthegeneralandspecificcriteriaforIPjudgesaredevelopedwiththeobjectiveofimprovingfutureselectionstotheIPCourt,whichwillbeheldafterthecurrentselectionprocessiscompleted.TheseRecommendationsarenot aimed at amending the current selection process and may not be applied to the candidates that are already taking part in this selection process.

ThedecisiontolocatetheIPCourtinKyivhascastdoubtsontheeffectiveaccesstojustice.We,therefore,recommendseveraloptionsthatmayfacilitatesuchaccess.First,werecommendestablishingtheobligationof the IP Court to conduct court hearings via videoconferences if a party has demonstrated sufficientgrounds.Further, if thecasehasaclearregionalconnectionandif thetrialviavideoconferencingisnotpractical,e.g.,becauseofthenumberofpartiesoramountofevidence,werecommendthatthehearingsmaybeconductedintheregioninquestion.Forthatpurpose,theIPCourtcoulduseabuildingofthelocalcivilorcommercialcourts,andincaseofasignificantincreaseinthenumberofIPlitigations,permanentregional divisions of the IP Courtmay be established inmajor Ukrainian cities. Finally,we recommendincreasingthenumberofjudgesbyatleasttwopanelsinthefirstinstance,andonepanelintheAppellateChamberoftheIPCourt.

1 It is important tonote that theseRecommendationsaredevelopedwith theobjectiveof improvingthe IPCourtsetup in its futureoperation, andnotforthepurposeofintroducingchangestotheprocessesthathavealreadytakenplace,suchastheselectionofIPjudges.Otherwise, theretrospectivechangesmayimpedethesuccessfulandspeedycompletionoftheestablishmentoftheIPCourt,compromisingtheconstitutional principleoflegalcertainty,aswellashavinganegativeeffectonthejudicialreformingeneralandontheIPenforcementsysteminparticular.


EXEC

UTIVE

SUMMAR

YOFTH

EFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS1.2. Recommendations Regarding Certain Provisions of the Rules of Procedure

WithrespecttothecompositionoftheIPCourt,werecommendamendingthecurrentmandatoryrequirementofathree-judgepanelhearingofallIPdisputesatfirstinstance,andinsteadestablishingthatfirstinstanceIPdisputesmaybedealtwithbyasinglejudgeasadefaultoption.Incertaininstances,forexampleduetothecomplexityofthecase,thecasemaybereferredtoapanelofthreejudges.Wealsorecommendthatunder certain circumstances a party may have the right to request the judge allocated to hear the dispute to transferthecasetoathree-judgepanel,eitherbeforeorduringthepreparatoryproceedings.Wherethecasewasallocatedtoapanelofthreejudges,werecommendthatcertainproceduralmattersmayneverthelessberesolvedbyasingle judge.Webelieve thatsuchmeasureswill facilitateeffectiveconsiderationof IPdisputesbytheIPCourtandatthesametimeunburdenitsdocket.

TheexclusivejurisdictionoftheIPCourtalsorequiresclarification.Specifically,werecommendthatanyappealsagainstthedecisionsregardingtherefusaltoregisteranIPrightmayfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheIPCourt.WealsorecommendthattheIPCourtmaybecompetent inrelationtotaxandcustomsdisputesthatinvolveanIPelement.However,thejurisdictionoftheIPCourtwouldonlycomprisedisputeswhereIPspecialisationisnecessarytoresolvethedispute.Wealsorecommendthattherecognitionofatrademarkaswell-known,incaseswherethereisadispute,fallswithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheIPCourt,whilecaseswherethereisnodisputemayremainunderthejurisdictionoftheAppellateChamberoftheMinistryofEconomic,TradeandAgriculturalDevelopmentofUkraine.TheappealsagainstthedecisionsoftheMinistryinthisregardmayfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheIPCourt.Furthermore,werecommendthattheCommercialProceduralCodeofUkraine(‘CPC’) may be amended by adding to the list of disputes thatfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheIPCourtdisputesrelatedtoallrelevantcopyrightholderswhohavetherighttorefertheirdisputestotheIPCourt.WealsorecommendthattheCPCmaybeamendedbyaddingto disputes on ‘entering into, modification, termination and execution of an agreement concerning theexerciseofintellectualpropertyrights…’alsodisputesconcerningtherecognitionofIP-relatedagreementsasinvalid,andthepossibilitytorecogniseaninvalidIP-relatedcontractasvalid.

As regardsevidence,we recommendthat theprocedureand the formofsubmittingelectronicevidenceareclearlydefined.Electronicevidencemaybeallowedtobesubmittedinanyform,provideditenablesareliableauthenticationthatthepieceofevidenceiswhatitisclaimedtobe.WealsorecommendclarifyingthecircumstancesinwhichtheIPCourthastheunilateralpowertoappointanexpert.Insuchcases,anexpertmay,nevertheless,beappointeduponpriorconsultationwiththeparties.

Furthermore,asthecurrentCPCprovisionsonpreliminaryinjunctivereliefslackclarityandhaveresultedinsuchreliefsbeingdifficulttoobtain,webelievethattheseprovisionsmaybeamended.WerecommendthattheCPCmayberevisedbyexplicitlyincludingthefollowingthreefactors2 that are typically considered bythecourts intheselectedIP jurisdictionswhengrantingapreliminary injunctiverelief, i.e.balanceofconvenience,urgencyofthethreatandthelikelihoodofsuccess.Inaddition,theprovisionsoftheCPCmaybeclarifiedbyexplicitlystatingthatallapplicationsforapreliminaryrelieffiledbeforethecommencementofthemainproceedingsshouldbefiledwiththeIPCourt.Asregardstheprovisiononcross-undertaking,werecommendthattheIPCourtmayhavethediscretiontograntapreliminaryinjunctivereliefwithoutorderingacross-undertaking,takingintoaccountthefactsofthecase,thepurposeofcross-undertakings,andthefinancialcircumstancesof theplaintiff.Wealsorecommendextendingthe listofcross-undertakingsbysupplementingitwith,forexample,theprovisionofnon-monetaryundertakings,aswellasthepossibilityto impose an obligation on the plaintiff to perform or refrain from performing certain actions until the finaldecision.Suchanoptionmaybeusedasanalternativetoamonetaryundertaking,orappliedonlyincircumstanceswheretheclaimantofferssufficientevidencethat theyareunabletoprovideamonetaryundertaking.Finally,werecommendlimitingthecourt’spowertocancelapreviouslygrantedpreliminaryinjunctivereliefofitsownvolitionbyindicatingintheCPCthatthecourthasthepowertorevokeapreliminaryinjunctivereliefattherequestofoneoftheparty,andbasedonthegroundsforsucharevocationspecifiedinthelaw,suchas,forexample,changeofcircumstances,orfailuretocommencemainproceedings.

2 The said three factors may serve as a non-exhaustive list of considerations that a court may take into account when deciding on granting an injunctive relief.


EXEC

UTIVE

SUMMAR

YOFTH

EFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS Astosecurityforcosts,werecommendthattheIPCourtmaybegrantedwidediscretionindecidingonsuch

matters.Specifically,thecourtmaybeallowedtotakematterssuchasfinancialhardshipintoaccountwhendecidingongrantingsuchabond.Concerningtheamountofsecurityforcosts,thecourtmaybeabletodecideontheamountoflegalfeesbasedonanaverageleveloflegalfeesonthemarket,ratherthanbasingitsorderonthespecificlegalfeesofthedefendant’sattorneys.

With respect to a new simplified procedure in the CPC in the form of a court order, which is currentlyunavailable to natural person IP owners without entrepreneurial status, we recommend amending thisprovisionbyprovidingtherighttofileanIP-relatedlawsuittoallinterestedparties,includingnaturalpersonswithout such a status.

Finally,we recommendproviding thepossibility tochallenge thedecisionsof theAppellateChamberoftheIPCourtbeforetheSupremeCourtunlessthecaseisinsignificant,i.e.thevalueoftheclaimdoesnotexceedtwotofiveminimumlivingwages.Whenthesaidthresholdismet,cassationmaybeallowedonlyifoneoftheconditionsset intheCPCismet; i.e. if thecase involves, interalia,mattersof fundamentalimportancefortheuniformapplicationoflaw,thecaseisofsignificantpublicinterestorhasanexceptionalimportance for the applicant.

ThesuccessfulimplementationoftheseRecommendationswillgreatlycontributetotheefficientfunctioningoftheIPCourt,aswellastheIPenforcementsystemingeneral.


INTRODUCTION

InternationalpracticedemonstratesthattheestablishmentofIPCourtsisessentialtodeepenjudges’andcourts’specialisation,improvethelevelofjudges’qualificationintheareaofIPrights,andensureuniformity of court practice and predictability of decisions.3WethinkthatthecreationoftheIPCourtinUkrainewillfacilitateadequatelevelofIPrightsprotectionandeffectivefunctioningoftheIPdisputeresolution system.

The legislative framework for the functioningandoperationof the IPCourt isalreadyestablished inUkraine.3 In particular, on 29 September 2017, the President of Ukraine issued a Decree “About TheEstablishment of the High IP Court». Later, on 3 October 2017, the Parliament of Ukraine adoptedamendments to the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, which established the procedure forresolvingdisputesatthenewIPCourt.

On20September2017,theStateCourtsAdministrationissuedaDecreeN929“AbouttheappointmentofanumberofjudgestotheHighIPCourt”,inwhichitstipulatedthattherewillbe21judgesattheIPCourt.On30September2017,theHighQualificationCommissionofJudgesofUkraine(HQCJ)tookadecisionN98/zp-17announcingtheselectionprocessof21judgestotheIPCourts(firstinstance).Later,on5October2018,theselectionof9judgestotheAppellateChamber(secondinstance)oftheIPCourtwas announced.

The selection for vacant positions started inOctober 2018, but it has not been completed due to thedismissal of HQCJmembers. The appointment of the newHQCJmemberswill enable the setting upof the IPCourt.Moreover, it is important to address a number of operational, financial and technicalissuestoensurethefunctioningoftheIPCourtsuchastheallocationofpremisesfortheIPCourt,theestablishment of the IP Court’s administration, the allocation of funds for judges’ and administrativepersonnel salaries.

The Recommendations and Road Map of the Project were prepared in order to ensure the effectiveoperationoftheIPCourtbyintroducingchangestothelegislativeframeworkoftheIPCourt.However,they are not intended to delay the setting up of the IPCourt.4 The suggestions as to the selection of judgesshouldbeappliediftherewillbeaneedtoincreasethenumberofjudgesinthefuture.Wethinkthat the introduction of retrospective changes may impede the successful and speedy completion of the establishmentoftheIPCourtandmaycompromisetheconstitutionalprincipaloflegalcertainty,aswellashaveanegativeeffectonthejudicialreformingeneralandontheIPenforcementsysteminparticular.

3 ThefindingsoftheComparativeStudyareincorporatedintheFinalRecommendationsdiscussedbelow. For the complete Comparative Study report see Annex 1.4 ThefindingsintheUkrainianLawReportareincorporatedintheFinalRecommendationsdiscussedbelow.

INTR

ODUCT

ION


I. CREATION OF THE SPECIALISED IP COURT IN UKRAINE

The establishment and effective operation of an IP court is a policy driven decision which aims atencouraging innovation, facilitating investment and guaranteeing the protection of the IPRs holders’interests.AnumberofstudiesonspecialisedIPcourtssuggestthattheestablishmentofsuchcourtsmayhavearangeofpositiveoutcomesfortheIPenforcementsystem.5 One of the main societal advantages of theestablishmentofaspecialised IPcourt is that it signals to thepublic that thestate is interestedin,andwillprotect,intellectualproperty.6 This may increase faith in the intellectual property system as a whole and encourage investment and innovation.7 Another positive outcome envisaged by the creation of aspecialisedcourt isthat it ismorecapableofkeepingabreastofdevelopmentsin itsspecificareasoflaw than the non-specialised courts.8Inaddition,theincreaseinthelevelofjudicialexpertisemayresultinlessrelianceontechnicalexpertsindecisionmaking,whichinturnimprovesthequalityandimpartialityofsuch decisions.9Moreover,greaterconsistencyandmoreuniformjurisprudencewithinthesematterscouldresultasIPdisputeswouldbeadjudicatedbyfewerjudges,eachpossessingagreaterlevelofexperiencein such disputes.10 There would also be less chance of specialist courts generating conflicting precedents duetomisunderstandingsoftechnicalitiesincomplexIPdisputes.11Caseoutcomesmay,therefore,becomemorepredictable.This,inturn,mayimprovebusinessconfidence,reducethecaseloadofanIPcourtandtheduration of the proceedings for litigants.12Moreover,itmayenablepartiestosettletheirdisputesbecausethe likely outcome of the dispute may be possible to predict due to the consistent application of precedent.13

InUkraine, the creationof a specialised IP court is an important element of the current judicial reformthatisaimedatimprovingtheoperationofthejudicialsystemingeneral,aswellasthefunctioningoftheIPenforcementsystem.SuchimprovementformspartofUkraine’sinternationalobligations.Inparticular,Ukraineisapartytoanumberofbilateralandmultilateralinternationaltreatieswhichregulatetheprotectionofintellectualpropertyrights,14includingtheAgreementonTradeRelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(TRIPs).15

Under these various international instruments, Ukraine is obliged to provide efficient protection andenforcement of intellectual property rights within its territory. For example, under Article 41(1) TRIPs,membersofthisagreementhaveundertakento‘…ensurethatenforcementprocedures…areavailableundertheir law to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights covered bythisAgreement,includingexpeditiousremediestopreventinfringementsandremedieswhichconstitutea deterrent to further infringements’. Under amore recent international treaty, namely the AssociationAgreement signed between Ukraine and the European Union,16 Ukraine has undertaken to provide ‘…measures,proceduresandremediesnecessarytoensuretheenforcementofintellectualpropertyrights’.17

WhilenoneofitsinternationalobligationsofensuringefficientprotectionandenforcementofintellectualpropertyrightsrequiresUkrainetoestablishaspecialisedIPcourtinordertofulfiltheseobligations,18 the

5 Seee.g.MarkusB.Zimmer,‘OverviewofSpecialisedCourts’(2009)2(1)International Journal for Court Administration <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2896064> (accessed23September2020);JacquesdeWerra, ‘Specialised Intellectual PropertyCourts-IssuesandChallenges,GlobalPerspectivesfortheIntellectualPropertySystem’(2016)2CEIPI-ICTSD;IIPIandUSPTO,‘Studyon Specialized Intellectual Property Courts’ (2012); IIC, ‘Adjudicating Intellectual Property Disputes’ (2016) <https://iccwbo.org/publication/ adjudicating-intellectual-property-disputes-an-icc-report-on-specialised-ip-jurisdictions/>(accessed23September2020).6 IIPIandUSPTO(n5)6.7 ibid.8 Werra(n5)24.9 ibid.10 ibid 25.11 ibid.12 ibid.13 ibid.AlongwiththeadvantagesofestablishingspecialisedIPcourts,expertsalsohighlightsomepotentialdrawbacks.This,forexample,includes narrow focusof specialisedcourts, i.e. suchcourtsmayplace toomuch importanceon the IPdimensionof the litigationathand,whilenot giving enough consideration to other dimensions such as e.g. contract and competition law in transactional disputes. Another drawback discussed isaccessibility,asspecialisedcourtsmaybesituatedinonefixedlocationwhichisinaccessibletomanybasedinotherpartsofthecountry,and thuscreatingabarriertojusticeforsomelitigants.Foradetaileddiscussiononthismatter,seee.g.Zimmer(n5)3-4;Werra(n5)26.14 Forexample,BernConventionfortheProtectionofLiteraryandArtisticWorks(1886)on31May1995,enteredintoforceforUkraineon25October 1995;MadridAgreementConcerningtheInternationalRegistrationofMarks(December25,1991);ParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustrial Property(December25,1991);PatentCooperationTreaty(December25,1991)(foradetailedlistofallIPrelatedUkrainianlawsandinternational treatiessee<https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=ua>)(accessed23September2020).15 UkrainejoinedtheAgreementonTrade-RelatedAspectsofIntellectualPropertyRights(1994)on16May2008.16 ‘AssociationAgreementbetweentheEuropeanUnionanditsMemberStates,oftheonepart,andUkraine,oftheotherpart’ (L161/3OJEUdated29.5.2014),inwhichChapter9‘IntellectualProperty’containsacomprehensivelistofsubstantiveprovisionsonvarioustypes ofintellectualproperty,aswellasproceduralprovisionsonIPenforcement(the‘Association Agreement’). 17 Article 230 of the Association Agreement.18 See,forexample,Article41(5)TRIPs,accordingtowhich‘[i]tisunderstoodthatthisPartdoesnotcreateanyobligationtoputinplaceajudicial systemfortheenforcementofintellectualpropertyrightsdistinctfromthatfortheenforcementoflawingeneral,nordoesitaffectthecapacity ofMemberstoenforcetheirlawingeneral’.

CREATIONOFTH

ESP

ECIALISE

DIPCOURT

INUKR

AINE


CREATIONOFTH

ESP

ECIALISE

DIPCOURT

INUKR

AINEestablishmentofsuchacourthasbeenviewedasbeinganeffectivewayofimprovingtheIPenforcement

system.19ItwasreceivedpositivelybyUkrainianlegalprofessionalsaswellastheacademiccommunityandisexpectedtobecomeaneffectiveandvaluabletoolforIPrightsholders.20

Inparticular,itisbelievedthatthecreationofaspecialisedIPcourtwillimprovetheIPenforcementsysteminUkrainebydecreasingthedurationofcourtproceedingsandsimultaneously increasingthequalityofdecisionsinIPcases.21This,itishoped,willbeachieved,interalia,byselectingandtrainingskilledjudgeswithinspecificareasofIPspecialisation,aswellasbydevelopingauniformandconsistentjudicialpractice.

1.1. Legal framework on the establishment of the IP Court in Ukraine

1.1.1. Developments leading to the establishment of the IP Court in UkraineAsearlyas the1990s, it becameapparent that theUkrainian judicial system,whichhadbeen inheritedfrom the Soviet Unionwithonlyminoramendments,didnotadequatelyreflectchangesinthefreemarketeconomyand,asaresult,therewasaneedforthedevelopmentofanewjudicialsystemtoaccommodatethem.22ThisalsoconcernedIPdisputesthatweretraditionallyconsideredbythreedifferenttypesofcourts:commercial, civil andadministrative.Whileprovidinganumberof options for resolving IPdisputes, thesystemhadasignificantdisadvantage:itroutinelygeneratedconfusionastothejurisdictionofthosecourtsinIPdisputes.Italsofrequentlyresultedinlengthyjudicialprocessesanddifferentcourtpracticeswhenconsidering identical IP issues. Inaddition,differentcourtsandprocedures,aswellasuneven levelsofexpertiseofjudges,haveoftenledtounpredictableandinconsistentoutcomesinIPdisputes.23Therefore,ithaslongbeenarguedbythelegalcommunitythatthecreationofIPspecialisationisnecessarytoovercomethese problems.24

TheideaofaspecialisedIPcourtwasfirstofficiallyadvancedinthe2001PresidentialDecree‘Onmeasuresrelating to the protection of intellectual property inUkraine’.25 In particular, the possibility of creating aspecialisedpatent courtwas tobeanalysedaspart of a rangeofmeasuresaimedat strengthening IPprotection.26At thesame time, ideasadvancing IPspecialisation in theUkrainiancourtshadstarted totakeshape in the formof judicial training in theearly2000s.Thiswasaimedatprovidingauniform IPbackgroundtothejudgesoperatingindifferentcourts.Whileonlyasmallfractionofjudgesreceivedsuchtraining,itneverthelesshadapositiveeffectonthequalityofdecisionsandthiswasparticularlyinevidencein the commercial courts. Further steps towards specialisation were taken in 2003 when specialised judicial

19 Seee.g.M.PototskyandM.Zakharenko,‘AspecialisedcourtthatconsidersdisputesrelatedtointellectualpropertyinUkraine:amistakeor necessity?’(2014)LegalBulletin204(discussingwhetherthecreationofaspecialisedIPcourtwillmaketheIPprotectionsysteminUkrainemoreeffective).20 TetianaPashkovska,‘TheIntellectualPropertyHighCourtisontheFinishLine’(2017)YurydychnaGazeta <http://yur-gazeta.com/publications/actual/vishchiy-intelektualniy-sud-na-finishniy-pryamiy.html>(accessed23September2020). AnumberoftherespondentstoourquestioneralsoexpressedtheirpositiveattitudetowardsthecreationoftheIPCourtinUkraine.21 ThedecisiontocreateaspecialisedIPcourtinUkrainewasalsoanissueofintensedebate.Someexpertsemphasisethat‘thepolicychoiceto createsuchacourtshouldbebasedonaninformedandtransparentanalysisofthesituationinthecountry.’SeeDemocracyReportingInternational ‘Ukraine’snewIntellectualPropertyHighCourt:implicationsforthejusticesystem’(May29,2018)<https://democracy-reporting.org/ukraines-new -high-intellectual-property-court-implications-for-the-justice-system/#_ftn8> (accessed 23 September 2020) referring to Werra (n 5) 31. TheyarguethatthisstandardwasnotsufficientlymetinUkrainebecausethepolicychoicetoestablishtheIPCourtwasnotsupportedbyconvincing evidence and was not preceded by broad public discussion and consultation with regards to the advantages and disadvantages of creating such specialisedcourt.Theyalsonotethat‘[t]heexplanatorynotetotheLaw“OntheJudiciaryandStatusofJudges”justifiesthecreationofthecourtby referringgenerallytothepositiveexperienceofotherEuropeancountrieswithintellectualpropertycourts,withoutexplainingfurtherthedetailsofthese experiencesandwhytheyarerelevantforUkraine’(ibid).22 AfterUkrainesecededfromtheSovietUnionittookthecoursetowardsanewmarketeconomy.Thisresultedintheadoptionofnewlaws,which regulatedthewholerangeofnewrightsinsociety.Forexample,theseincludedtheLawofUkraine‘OntheProperty’(7February1991,N697-XII), whichforthefirsttimeestablishedtherighttoprivateproperty.Inaddition,theLawofUkraine,‘OnCommercialEntities’(19September1991, N1576-XII),whichforthefirsttimeprovidedthepossibilitytoestablishprivatelegalentities.Theseandotherlawsenvisagedinteraliajudicial mechanismsofprotectingrightsprovidedintheselaws.Thisinturnrequiredrelevantchangesinthethenjudicialsystem,astheselawsessentially creatednewcategoriesofcases,whichdidnotexistbefore.Therefore,theneedtoreformthejudicialsystemdidnotgenerateanyobjectionand discussion,asthiswasthelogicalconsequenceofthenewsubstantivelaws,whichcameintoforceatthattime.Seee.g.DecreeoftheParliament of Ukraine, ‘On the Recommendations to the Parliamentary hearings “Protection of intellectual property in Ukraine: problems of legislative frameworkanditsenforcement”’(N1243-V,27June2007).23 Thisproblem, for example,wasacknowledged inDecree ‘On theRecommendations to theParliamentaryhearings “Protectionof intellectual propertyinUkraine:problemsoflegislativeframeworkanditsenforcement”’(n22)(‘…itisnecessarytotakefurtherstepsinrelationtoimplementing IPspecialisation incourts. It is thereforenecessary to resolve theproblemof theappropriate identificationofcourts’ jurisdiction relating to specificcategoriesofcases.Notallthecourtsofciviljurisdictionhaveimplementedsufficientspecialisationandtrainingofjudgestoensure effectiveIPdisputeresolution’).24 Svitlana Parkhomchuk, ‘Ways of introducing Bodies of Patent Jurisdiction into the Ukrainian Judicial System’ (2012) Problems of Civil and Commercial Law in Ukraine <http://kul.kiev.ua/images/chasop/2012_2/228.pdf> (accessed 23 September 2020); The National Strategy for theDevelopmentoftheSphereofIntellectualPropertyinUkraineforthePeriodupto2020(2014,unofficialtext)<https://uba.ua/documents/ip- strategy28082014.pdf>(accessed23September2020).25 DecreeofthePresidentofUkraine‘OnmeasuresrelatingtotheprotectionofintellectualpropertyinUkraine’(No.285/2001,dated27April2001) <http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/285/2001>(accessed23September2020).26 Thereisnoinformationonfurtherdevelopmentsinthisregardfromthe2001Decree.However,theneedforthecreationofaspecialisedIP courtwasalsostatedinthe‘ConceptofthedevelopmentofthestatesystemofIPprotectionduring2009-2014’,approvedbytheBoardoftheState DepartmentofIntellectualProperty.Protocol№11dated11March2009.


CREATIONOFTH

ESP

ECIALISE

DIPCOURT

INUKR

AINE chamberswere created in theHighCommercial Court of Ukraine (the cassation instance at that time),

includingthecreationofachambertoconsiderIPrelateddisputes.27

ThediscussionsregardingIPspecialisationhavealsoincludedsuggestionsthat,toenhancetheeffectivenessandqualityof IPadjudication,suchcasesshouldbelongtothe jurisdictionofonlyonetypeofcourt.28 As statisticallymostoftheIPcaseswereconsideredbycommercialcourts,29 the suggestions centred on the idea thatIPdisputesshouldfallwithinthejurisdictionofthesecourts.30 This idea gained ground and formed part ofthe2007recommendationsfortheimprovementofIPprotectiontobeconsideredbytheParliament.31Inparticular,astheresultoftheParliamentaryhearings,itwasdecidedtolookatthepossibilityoftransferringIPdisputestothejurisdictionofthecommercialcourtsduetothehigherlevelofIPexpertiseofthecommercialcourt judges.32Aswillbeseenfromthefollowingsections,thishaseventuallyresultedintheestablishmentoftheIPCourtwithinthesystemofthecommercialcourts,aswellasthedevelopmentoftheIPCourt’sproceduralruleswithinthegeneralrulesoftheCommercialProceduralCodeappliedbythecommercialcourts.

Asaconsequence,overthelastdecadethediscussiononhowtoimprovethequalityofIPdisputescanberesolvedintotwomainchoices:theestablishmentofaseparateIPcourtortheintroductionofIPchamberswithinthelocalandappellatecourts.Eventually,thefirst,namelytheestablishmentofaseparateIPcourt,wasadopted.33

1.2. Judicial reform in Ukraine and the establishment of the IP Court

Aswasnotedearlier,therehasbeenanunderstandingthattheentireUkrainianjudicialsystemneedsfurtherextensivereforms.Thefirstsubstantialreforminthisareawasundertakenin2010-2013andincludedthecreationofanadditionalinstancebetweentheappellatecourtsandtheSupremeCourtofUkraineintheformofthreespecialisedhighcourts(administrative,commercial,andcivilandcriminal).Thisreformthuscreatedafour-tiercourtsystem,aswellassignificantlycurtailedtheSupremeCourt’sjuridicalpower.

In2014,thePresidentofUkraineestablishedacouncilonjudicialreform.Itsmaintaskhasbeentodevelopajudicialreformstrategy,whichwouldstrengthentheindependenceofthecourts,aswellasincreasepublictrustintheUkrainianjudicialsystem.AsignificantsteptowardssuchareformwastheadoptionoftheLaw‘OnEnsuringtheRighttoaFairTrial’,whichcameintoforceon29thMarch2015.34 This law introduced certain changes to the structureoftheUkrainianjudicialsystemaswellasseveralproceduralcodes.Further,on20thMay2015,thePresidentialdecreeoutlinedthestrategyforthisjudicialreform.35 On2ndJune2016theParliamentofUkraineadoptedtwolawswhichsetintrainthecurrentjudicialreform.ThefirstintroducedchangestotheprovisionsrelatedtojusticewithintheConstitutionofUkraine.36Thesecondlaw,namelytheLaw‘OntheJudicialSystemandthe Status of Judges’ (‘the Law on the Judicial System’),amendedthejudicialsystemitself.37 These laws began a rootandbranchtransformationoftheUkrainianjudicialsystemandtheadministrationofjusticegenerally.

ThenewLawontheJudicialSystemisamajoroverhaulofUkraine’sjudiciary.Itreplacesthefour-tiercourtsystemwithathree-tierone.ItalsointroducesmajorchangestothestructureandjurisdictionoftheSupremeCourtofUkraine,andcreatestwonewspecialisedcourts,includingtheIPCourt.Thelatter,undertheLawontheJudicialSystem,wastobeestablishedwithin12monthsofthedatewhentheLawcameintoforce,i.e.September2017.However,althoughtheIPCourthasbeenformallyestablished,itisnotyetoperational.38

27 OrderoftheHighCommercialCourt‘OntheEstablishmentoftheJudicialChambersintheHighCommercialCourtofUkraine’(N18,7February2003) <http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0018600-03>(accessed23September2020).28 Y.Neclesa,‘ProblemsofRealisationofthePatentJusticeinUkraine’(2018)3Comparative-analyticallaw115(http://pap.in.ua/3_2018/32.pdf) (accessed 23 September 2020).29 Forexample,in2016,outof997IPrelatedlawsuits647werefiledwithcommercialcourts.SeeNinaKucheruk,‘IPHighcourt:Who?When?Where?’(18October 2017)YurydychnaGazeta<http://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/sudova-praktika/vishchiy-ipsud-hto-de-koli.html>(accessed23September2020).30 Neclesa (n 28).31 Decree‘OntheRecommendationstotheParliamentaryhearings“ProtectionofintellectualpropertyinUkraine:problemsoflegislativeframeworkanditsenforcement”’(n22).32 ibidrecommendation3.TheallocationofIPcaseswithinthejurisdictionofthecommercialcourtswasalsoactivelydiscussedbythelegal community.Seee.g.thediscussionduringtheroundtable‘PatentCourt:prosandcons’heldon27October2015bytheUkrainianBarAssociation <http://vgsu.arbitr.gov.ua/news/1851/>(accessed23September2020).33 WhilethelegalcommunityhaddiverseviewsastowhetherthecreationofaseparateIPcourtwasjustified,andwhethertheestablishmentofa morein-depthspecialisationwithinthecurrentjudicialsystemwastheoptimalmeansoffacilitatingthis,themajorityofIPprofessionals, academicsandmembersoftheParliamentsupportedthecreationofacourt.Seee.g.Pashkovska(n20).34 LawofUkraine‘OnEnsuringtheRighttoaFairTrial’(№192-VIII,12February2015) <http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/192-19>(accessed23September2020).35 DecreeofthePresidentofUkraine‘OntheStrategytoReformtheJudicialSystemandRelatedLegalInstitutionsin2015-2020’ (№276/2015,20May2015)<http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/276/2015>(accessed23September2020).36 LawofUkraine,‘OntheAmendmentstotheConstitutionofUkraine(RegardingJustice)’(№1401-VIII,2June2016) <http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1401-19>(accessed23September2020).37 LawofUkraine‘OntheSystemofJusticeandtheStatusofJudges’(№1402-VIII,2June2016) <http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19>(hereinafterreferredto‘the Law on the Judicial System’).38 Article15ofSectionXII‘FinalandTransitionalProvisions’oftheLawOntheJudicialSystem.


II. THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1. Recommendations on the establishment and effective functioning of the IP Court TheUkrainianReport identifiesseveralprovisionsinUkrainianLawontheestablishmentoftheIPCourtthat may affect its effective functioning. This section provides recommendations concerned with the improvementofthesetupoftheIPCourtbasedonbestpracticesintheleadingIPjurisdictionsanalysedinthe Comparative Study.

2.1.1. Recommendations on the structure of the IP Court AccordingtotheLawontheJudicialSystem,theIPCourtwillactasafirstinstancecourt,hearingspecificcategories of cases that fall within its jurisdiction.39TheLawalsostatesthattheAppellateChamberoftheIPCourt will be created within the Court.40Thismeansthat,unlikeotherappellatecourtsinUkraine,theappellateinstancewillbecreatedaspartofasinglecourtwiththefirstinstanceratherthanasaseparateappellatecourt.Hence, thenew IPCourtwill operateas thecourtof thefirst andsecond (appellate) instances.41 Whilea clear separationbetween thefirst instanceand theAppellateChamber, aswell as independentperformanceoftheirfunctions,areexpected,thecreationofthetwojudicialinstanceswithinonecourtmayraiseconcernsastotheimpartialityandindependentreviewofthefirstinstancejudges’decisionsbytheAppellateChamberjudges.Specifically,suchastructuremaybeviewed,alongsidecertainotherfactors,tobeincontraventionoftherighttoafairtrialguaranteedbyArticle7(1)oftheLawontheJudicialSystem,42 which corresponds to the right to an independent and impartial tribunal guaranteed under Article 6 of the ConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms(ECHR).43

This, inturn,mayresult inanincreasednumberofchallengesbythepartiesarguingtheviolationoftherightstoafairtrialandimpartialityandindependenceofjudges,requestingtheremovalofsuchjudgesorsettingasidetheirdecisions.Thismayhaveanegativeeffectontheefficiencyofcourtproceedings.

Our analysis of the structures of the specialised IP courts and the courts that are competent to hearIP cases44 reveals that, in the majority of the selected jurisdictions,45 separate appellate courts hear appealson thedecisionsofcourtsoffirst instance.46Suchaseparationofcourtsoffirstandappellateinstances in all these jurisdictions safeguards and ensures the right of the parties to a fair trial by an independentand impartial tribunal.Thefact thatappellate judgessit indifferentbuildings,and insomejurisdictions in different cities, further ensures the impartiality and independence of appellate judges.47

39 Article 31(2) of the Law on the Judicial System.40 Article31(4)oftheLawontheJudicialSystem.SeealsoArticle25(3)CPC.41 ItmustbenotedthatanotherspecialisedandnewlyestablishedUkrainianAnticorruptionCourthasthesamestructure,asthenewIPCourt. See Article 31(4) of the Law on the Judicial System.42 AccordingtoArticle7(1)oftheLawontheJudicialSystem‘[e]veryoneisguaranteedtheprotectionofhisrights, freedomsandinterestswithinareasonabletimebyanindependent,impartialandfairtribunalestablishedbylaw’.43 The right to an independent and impartial tribunal is protected under Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms.AccordingtothejurisprudenceoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECoHR),‘impartialitymustbeassessedboth bymeansofasubjectivetest[…],andbymeansofanobjectivetest,whichconsistsofascertainingwhetherthejuWdgeofferedguaranteessufficient toexcludeanylegitimatedoubtinthisrespect’(JudgmentoftheECoHRof17.06.2003inPescadorValerov.Spain,no62435/00).Theobjectivetest takesintoaccountthe‘appearance’surroundingtheadjudicationprocess,inaccordancewiththeadage‘justicemustbeseentobedone’(Council of Europe, Guide to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to fair trial (civil limb), 2019, p 49, available at <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_ENG.pdf>,accessed23September2020).Whencarryingout theobjective test in relation toajudgereviewingajudgmentofafirstinstancecourt,theECoHRwilltakeintoaccountavarietyoffactors,includingthecharacterofrelationship betweenthejudgethatissuedthedecisioninquestionandthejudgethatreviewedit,aswellaswhetherthejudgessharedsubstantialinformation aboutthecase(JudgmentoftheECoHRof19.05.2005,no63151,caseofSteck-Rischandothersv.Liechtenstein).Whereasthefactofsharing anofficeorbeingworkcolleaguesdoesnotamount,assuch,toaviolationoftheConvention,ifitresultsinthecreationofappearanceofanon- professionalenvironmentwithinacourt,whichcouldcompromisetheobjectivelyunderstoodimpartialityofthecourt,itmayconstituteoneofthe groundsfortheapplicationtotheECoHR.44 Bothtypesofcourts,i.e.thespecialisedIPcourtsandthecourtsthatarecompetenttohearIPcases,willbereferredtointhisreportas‘the specialisedIPcourts’.45 AnexceptiontothisgeneralrulecanbefoundintheUK,wherecertainappealsarefiledwithinthesamecourtoffirstinstance.Ingeneral,all appealsagainstthejudgmentsofthespecialisedIPcourts(i.e.thePatentsCourt,theIPECinmulti-trackclaimsandthegeneralChanceryDivision of theHighCourt)aregenerallybrought to theCourtofAppeal.However,appealsagainst thedecisionsofadistrict judge in the IPECsmall claims trackmustbebrought toanenterprise judge, i.e.a judgeof the IPECmulti-track.Nevertheless, these two levelsof the IPECarekept separate.Specifically,jurisdictionofthedistrictandenterprisejudgesareclearlydefined.Moreover,theysitindifferentbuildings:theenterprise judgeshearcasesintheRollsBuildinginLondon,whilethesmallclaimstrackcasesareheardintheThomasMoreBuildinginLondon.Formore detailseePartII,Section2.1oftheComparativeStudy.46 SeePartsIVandV,Sections1.1and2.2oftheComparativeStudy(e.g., inFrance,appealsagainstthedecisionsoftheParistribunalthathas exclusive jurisdictiontohearcertain IPcasesareheardbytheParisCourtofAppeal.Similarly, theCourtofAppeal inTheHaguereviewsthe decisionsoftheDistrictCourtofTheHaguethathasexclusivejurisdictionovercertainIPdisputes.InGermany,theFederalCourtofJusticeof GermanyreviewsthedecisionoftheFederalPatentCourt).47 SeePartIV,Section1.3.oftheComparativeStudy.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


Nevertheless,atwo-instancesstructureofacourtmaybefoundwithintheEuropeanjudiciary.Forinstance,theCourt of Justice of the EuropeanUnion comprises of theGeneral Court and theCourt of Justice.48 AppealsagainstthedecisionsoftheGeneralCourtareconsideredbytheCourtofJustice.

Therefore, while the current two-instance structure of the IP Court does not contradict the principles of judicial independence and impartiality as such, we believe that special care must be exercised, and measures must be introduced to guarantee impartiality and fair trial. Therefore, we recommend considering additional safeguards to ensure that the process of reviewing the decisions of the first instance by the appellate IP judges complies with the highest standards of the principles of independence and impartiality, as well as preventing the hindrance of the proceedings based on claims alleging violations of these principles. This may be achieved, inter alia, by separating the two instances of the IP Court and accommodating them in different buildings.49 We believe that this Recommendation will contribute to the effective functioning of the IP Court ensuring the impartial and independent review of the first instance decisions at the IP Court.

2.1.2. Recommendations on the selection criteria of IP judges

2.1.2.1. Recommendation on the selection criteria for judges at the Appellate Chamber

TheLawontheJudicialSystemprovides for thesameselectioncriteria for IP judgesboth thefirstandappellate instances.50Specifically,theLawprovidesthattheAppellateChambercreatedwithintheIPCourtwillconsistofthejudgesselectedtotheIPCourtunderthesameselectionprocessandaccordingtothesamequalificationcriteriaasthoseappointedasthefirstinstancejudges.51Atthesametime,Article28oftheLawestablishesmorerigorousselectioncriteriaforjudgesofappellatecourtsthanforjudgesoffirstinstancecourtsconcerningalltypesofcourtsotherthantheIPCourt.Therationaleforhigherselectioncriteriaintermsofexperienceforappellatejudgesstemsfromthefactthattheyareentrustedwithamoredifficulttask, i.e.therevisionofadisputeandevaluationofconclusionsmadebyfirstinstancejudges.However,asmentioned,thecurrentselectioncriteriafortheappellateIPjudgesareidenticaltotheselectioncriteriaforthefirstinstanceIPjudges,52 i.e. the requirements established for those candidates who previously did notactasjudgesandthuswillperformthisroleforthefirsttime.HavingdifferentselectioncriteriaforthejudgesoftheAppellateChamberoftheIPCourtandthejudgesofotherappellatecourtsraisesconcernsasto the consistency within the provisions of the Law on the Judicial System and the likelihood of achieving oneoftheobjectivesofsettinguptheIPCourtinthefirstplace-theestablishmentofacoherenthigh-leveljurisprudenceonIPmatters.53

The analysis of the selected jurisdictions shows that the requirements for judges in higher instance courts are typically more rigorous than for judges in lower instance courts.54

Therefore, we recommend adjusting the selection criteria for the appellate IP judges by establishing more rigorous requirements in line with the general selection criteria set for appellate judges in order to bring them in conformity with the provisions of the Law on the Judicial S ystem. We believe that the implementation of this Recommendation will improve the quality of judicial review at the IP Court.

48 EuropeanUnion,‘CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion’<https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice_en> (accessed 23 September 2020).49 Itwouldbealsosensibletoobservethedevelopmentofthetwo-levelstructureoftheAnticorruptionCourt,inordertoidentifyotherpossibleareasofrisk50 Article 33 of the Law on the Judicial System.51 Article 33 of the Law on the Judicial System.52 Article 69(1) of the Law on the Judicial System.53 Article 28 of the Law on the Judicial System. 54 SeeParts Iand II,Sections1.2.of theComparativeStudy(e.g., in theUS,whenevaluatingprofessionalqualificationsofa judgenomineethe requirementsarestricterforthehighercourtscomparingtothelowercourts.ThisespeciallyconcernstheSupremeCourtnominees.Likewise, intheUK,bothformalandinformalselectioncriteriaarestricterforjudge-candidatestothehigher-levelcourts.Similarapproachistakeninother jurisdictions analysed in the Comparative Study).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.1.2.2. Recommendation on the specific selection criteria for IP judgesAccordingtotheLawontheJudicialSystem,thefollowingcandidatesmayapplytobecomeanIPCourtjudge:judges,attorneys-at-lawandpatentattorneys.However,whiletherequirementsforIPprofessionalssuchaspatentattorneysandattorneys-at-lawarequitestrictandrequireatleastfiveyearsofIPpracticewithsufficientevidenceofsuchexperience,55thethresholdforjudgesissetataminimumlevel,i.e.threeyearsofbeingajudgewithnorequirementofadjudicatingIPcases.Therationaleforsuchdifferentrequirementsinrelationtoeachcategoryofcandidate isunclear.Whileunderthecurrentcriteria,candidatessuchaspatent attorneys and attorneys-at-lawwill possess IP experience, it could be that judge candidates donothaveanyIPexperienceatall.56Furthermore,theLawcontainsnorequirementsthatanIPjudgemustpossess a science-based background nor that at least one judge of a three-judge panel must have such a background.57 Forsome typesofdisputes that involve technical issues, forexample, those relating topharmaceuticalor computer-implemented inventions, a scientificbackgroundmaybebeneficial to fullycomprehendthecomplexityofsuchdisputes.Consequently,ashortageoftechnicallyqualifiedIPjudgesat both instancesmay affect the composition of judicial panels for adjudicating technical IP disputes.Therefore,thecurrentselectioncriteriamayresultinsomeoftheIPjudgeslackingsufficientknowledgeinIPand/orrelevanttechnicalbackgroundfortheadjudicationofcomplexIPdisputes.

TheleadingIPjurisdictionsanalysedintheComparativeStudyapproachtheselectioncriteriaofIPjudgesdifferently.While the law in those jurisdictionscontainsnospecificcriteriaon the IP-relatedknowledgethat a candidate for the position of an IP judgemust possess, the informal selection criteria take intoaccounttheirIPexperience.Asaresult,IPjudgesinallthesejurisdictionshaveconsiderableknowledgeof IP law.58 Insomejurisdictions, IP judgesalsohaveatechnicalorscientificbackground.59 Such an in-depthIPknowledgeenjoyedbyIPjudgesinthematureIPjurisdictions,which,insomejurisdictions,isalsosupplementedwithatechnical/scientificbackground,ensuresthatIPadjudicationinthesejurisdictionsisofhighquality.Additionally,insomejurisdictionsthejudgesareassistedbyaspecialtypeofcourtadvisorswhose role is to explain the technical details of the case to the judge.60

Basedontheanalysisoftheselected jurisdictions,webelievethat it is importanttoestablishageneralrequirementofpossessinganadequateknowledgeinthefieldofIPforallIPcandidatesthatwouldensurethattheIPCourtcomprisesofexperiencedIPjudgeswhowilldeliverhighqualityIPadjudication.However,while it would be desirable to have highly experienced IP jurists appointed to the IP Court, in practiceit is likely toprovedifficult to recruitasufficientnumberofsuch individuals.Oneof the reasons is thatoncetheIPCourtcommencesitsoperationandassumesitsexclusivejurisdictionoverIPdisputes,therewillbenojudgesoutsideoftheIPCourt,whowillconsiderIPcasesandthusjudgesfromothertypesofcourts(suchascivil,commercialandadministrative)willbeunabletomeetthemandatoryrequirementofpossessinganIPexperience.Furthermore,duetothefactthatmostofIPcasesareconcentratedinKyiv,alotofexperiencedlawyersfromotherregionsarenotabletopracticeIPandthusareunabletomeetthecurrentrequirementsofIPexperiencesetintheLawontheJudicialSystem.61Therefore,consideringthe

55 TheLaw,however,doesnotspecifythetypeofevidencethatmaybeusedtoconfirmsuchexperience.Forexample,howmanyIPcasesanattorney shouldhavebeeninvolvedin,whethertheresultsofthesecasesareimportant(thestatisticsofsuccessfulandunsuccessfulcases),etc.56 Thisspecificconcernwasraisedbysomeoftherespondents.Explicitly,itwasemphasisedthatthemajorityofcandidates,whoaretakingpart intheselectionprocesstothenewIPCourt,arejudgeswithnoknowledgeandexperienceofIPandthatthismayresultinanevenlowerquality ofIPadjudicationthanitwasbeforethecreationoftheIPCourt.Inaddition,theLawdoesnotincludesuchcategoryofcandidatesasIPacademics, althoughtheyareentitledtotakepartintheselectionprocesstothenewSupremeCourtofUkraineandarealsoabletoapplyforthepositionof anappellatejudge;againtherationaleforthedivergenceintherequirementsisunclear(seeArticle28oftheLawontheJudicialSystem).Some of the respondents alsomentioned that itwould be beneficial to add such categories of candidates as IP lawyers,who are not qualified as attorneys-at-law,aswellascourtexpertswithIPexperience.57 Democracy Reporting International ‘Ukraine’s new Intellectual Property High Court: implications for the justice system’ (May 29, 2018) <https://democracy-reporting.org/dri_publications/briefing-paper-ukraines-new-high-intellectual-property-court-implications-for-the- justice-system>(accessed23September2020).58 SeePartsIandV,Section1.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,themajorityofthejudgesoftheCourtofAppealfortheFederalCircuit(‘CAFC’) have significant IP background. Likewise, in the Netherlands, most of the IP judges have prior experience of practice as IP/patent litigators or as patent attorneys).59 SeePartII,Section1.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUKmostoftheIPjudgesinthefirstinstanceofthespecialisedIPcourts,aswell asjudgesintheCourtofAppealwhohearIPcases,havetechnical/scientificbackground.InGermany,auniquefeatureoftheFederalPatentCourt isthatitsjudgesincludenotonlylawyerswithIPexpertise,butalsonaturalscientists,referredtoas‘technical’judges,whositonallpatentcases. As a result, out of the overall number of 102 judges, 55 judges possess life science or technical knowledge (Bundespatentgericht, <https://www.bundespatentgericht.de/DE/dasGericht/Organisation/organisation_node.html>)(accessed23September2020).60 Forexample, in theUK, the judgesmaytakeadvantageof theso-called ‘assessors’whohaveexpertise ina relevant technicalfieldor, in the PatentsCourt,‘scientificadvisors’whohelpthecourtunderstandthetechnicalaspectsofthecase(formoreinformationseePartII,Section2.3 of the Comparative Study).61 Theseconcernswerealso raisedbyanumberofparticipantsduringourpresentationsof thePreliminaryRecommendations inKyiv,Kharkiv and Lviv in October 2019.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


currentstateofIPspecialisationinUkraineandthefactthatitmaybedifficulttoattractasufficientnumberof IPexperts,eligiblecandidatesmayalso include judgesand lawyerswho,while theymaynothaveanextensiveIPexperience,neverthelessarehighlyqualified.Forexample,judgeswithmorethan15yearsofjudicial experience and lawyers with more than 20 years of experience in litigation may be considered as suitablecandidates.ThiswillallowincreasingthepoolofexpertswhomayqualifytobecomeanIPjudge.AnadditionalbenefitofthisapproachisthatthismayavoidatraditionalcriticismofspecialisedIPcourtsthatsuchcourtsarepronetodevelopa‘tunnelvision’,i.e.thattheymaybecometoonarrowintheirfocusandmayplaceatoomuchimportanceontheIPdimensionofthelitigationathand,whilenotgivingenoughconsideration to other aspects such as e.g. contract and competition law in transactional disputes.62Havingsome judges with the generalist approach may help to avoid this problem.

Based on the analysis of the approaches taken in the leading IP jurisdictions, as well as having regard to the realities of the current IP specialisation in Ukraine, we recommend amending the selection criteria for IP judges.

1) First, we recommend that uniform selection criteria are established for all candidates for the position of an IP judge, requiring the possession of substantial knowledge and experience in the field of IP

2) Second, we recommend reserving the possibility of appointing judges and lawyers who, while they may not have an extensive IP experience, nevertheless are highly qualified; for example, judges with more than 15 years of judicial experience and lawyers with more than 20 years of experience in litigation.

3) Third, following the UK model, we recommend establishing the institution of ‘scientific advisors’, who may be appointed by the IP judges to assist them in understanding technical issues.

4) Fourth, we recommend considering the possibility of reserving certain number of posts for IP judges with a relevant technical or scientific background.

We believe that the introduction of the requirement of an in-depth knowledge in the field of IP for all IP judges along with establishing the institute of ‘scientific advisors’, as well as the possibility of appointing judges who themselves possess technical/scientific background to consider technically complex IP disputes will enable the new IP Court to deliver effective and high-quality IP adjudication. Moreover, the possibility of appointing highly qualified judges and lawyers as IP judges may broaden the pool of candidates for the IP Court, as well as may help to avoid a narrow focus of the Court.

We would like to highlight that the Recommendations regarding the revision of the general and specific criteria for IP judges are developed with the objective of improving future selections to the IP Court, which will be held after the current selection process is completed. These Recommendations are not aimed at amending the current selection process and may not be applied to the candidates that are already taking part in this selection process.

62 Zimmer(n5)3-4;deWerra(n5)26.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.1.3. Recommendation on the location of the IP Court

ThedecisiontolocatetheIPCourtinKyivcastsdoubtontheeffectiveaccesstojustice.63Particularly,this locationmaycausedifficultiesinaccessingtheIPCourtforthemajorityofUkrainiancitizensfromotherregionsofUkraine.Whilesomearguethatthiscouldberesolvedbyholdingproceedingsviavideoconferences,64 others contend that, in practice, courts often refuse to conduct such videoconferences and generally require theparties to attend hearings in person.65Inaddition,insomecases,thequalityofsuchvideoconferencesisverylow.66Somealsoarguethattheoptionofvideoconferenceswillnotresolvetheproblemofaccesstojustice,becausethenewCPCprovidesthe‘right’andnotthe‘obligation’ofthecourttoconductcourthearingsviavideoconferences.Asa result,suchvideoconferencing isat thediscretionof thecourt, therebypotentiallyreducingaccess.Apartymayberequiredtoarguewhytheproceedingsshouldbeconductedinthatmanner,whiletheotherpartymayobject.Finally,videoconferencingmayonlybeusedinaspeciallyequippedvenueofthecourt.Thenumberofsuchvenuesremainslimited.Inordertoaddressthesedifficultiesandtoimproveaccesstothecourtsystem,certainsolutionshavebeenalreadyputinmotion.Specifically,underarecentlydevelopedjudicialpractice,partiesmay indicateseveralcourtsaspotentialvenuesforconductingvideoconferencing.Thishasenhancedthechancesofthepartiestoconducttheproceedingsviavideoconferencing,becauseoneof these court venues would usually be available.67Inaddition,asageneralrule,thenewCPCallowsthepartiestoparticipateintheproceedingsbymeansofvideoconferencingoutsideofthecourts’venues,however,theapplicationofthisprovisionwillonlybepossibleaftertheUnifiedCourtInformationandTelecommunicationSystem Act is implemented.68Whilethesedevelopmentsmayenhancetheeffectivenessofconductinghearingsviavideoconferencing,and,inturn,mayimproveaccesstotheIPCourt,thesystemrequiresfurtherimprovement,by, interalia, introducing theobligationof thecourt toconducthearingsviavideoconferencing if thepartydemonstratessufficientgrounds,andcontinuousdevelopmentofthevideoconferencinginfrastructure. The approaches taken in the selected jurisdictions provide some good examples of how access to justice canbe ensured. In particular, those jurisdictions that havea specialised IP court (asopposed to thosejurisdictionsthathaveallocatedanexclusivecompetencetohearIPcasestonon-specialisedcourts)allowconductinghearings invarious locationsoutsideof thecourt,which increasesaccess to justice for thelitigants.69Inparticular,withrespecttoconductinghearingsoutsideofaregularvenueofanIPcourtourstudy identified several approaches.On the one hand, in some jurisdictions IP court judges travel to alocationeitherchosenadhocbythecourtinaccordancewiththestatutoryrequirements,70ortoaspecificallydesignatedlocation,suchasaregionaldivisionoftheIPcourt.71Ontheotherhand,IPcasesmaybeheardataregionaldivisionofanIPcourtbyspeciallydesignatedjudgesbasedatthatregionaldivision.72

63 Decree of the President of Ukraine, ‘On the Establishment of the High Court on Intellectual Property’ (№ 299/2017, 29 September 2017) <http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/299/2017>(accessed23September2020).64 DemocracyReportingInternational(n57).65 S. Popynachenko, ‘The IP High Court: advantages and problematic aspects of its creation’ (2018) Prospective directions of scientific thoughts42;NinaKucheruk,‘IPHighcourt:Who?When?Where?’YurydychnaGazeta <http://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/sudova-praktika/vishchiy-ipsud-hto-de-koli.html>(accessed23September2020).66 Popynachenko(n65)42.67 E.g. see judgment of the Odesa Commercial Court of Appeal of 06 April 2018. Case No. 916/5227/14. <http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/73247312>(accessed23September2020).68 Article 197(3) of the CPC. As wasmentioned, this provision cannot be applied at themoment, as it depends on the implementation of the UnifiedCourtInformationandTelecommunicationSystemAct,whichhasnotbeenadoptedyet.On13August2020,adraftlaw‘Ontheamendments tocertainlegislativeactsregardingthephasedimplementationoftheUnifiedCourtInformationandTelecommunicationSystem’wasregistered withtheParliamentofUkraine(theregistrationnumber3985).Asofthetimeofwriting,thisdrafthasnotbeenconsideredbytheParliament. <http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=69679>. In addition, in March 2020, Article 197 CPC was supplemented with the provisionthatallowstoconductthehearingsviavideoconferencingoutsideofthecourtpremisesduringtheCOVID-19pandemicwithouttheuse oftheUnifiedCourtInformationandTelecommunicationSystem.Whilesuchchangeshaveimprovedthepossibilityoftheremoteparticipationin thecourthearings,thisprovisionwillceasetooperateaftertheendofthelockdown.69 SeePartsIandII,Section1.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.intheUS,whiletheCAFCislocatedinWashington,D.C.,itisalsoauthorisedtositin othercitiesthroughouttheUSinordertosatisfytheneedsofthelitigants.Thesesessionscanbeheldinvariousvenuessuchasstatecourthouses andlawschools.Similarly,intheUK,whileallthespecialisedIPcourtsaresituatedinLondon,theyoperateundertheumbrellaname‘theBusiness and Property Courts’, which includes themain London office and regional offices in the six cities (Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Cardiff, Newcastle,andBristol).Therefore,whiletypicallyitistheLondonofficethatdealswiththemajorityofIPclaimsatallstagesoftheproceedings, the district registries may also conduct case management and trial if an appropriate judge is available.70 SeePartI,Section1.3oftheComparativeStudy(IntheUS,theCAFCjudgesmaytraveltoconsideracaseoutsideoftheCourt’sregularvenue inWashingtonD.C.ThedecisiontoholdhearingsoutsideWashingtonD.C.ismadebytheCAFCwith‘aviewtosecuringreasonableopportunityto citizenstoappearbeforethecourtwithaslittleinconvenienceandexpensetocitizensasispracticable’(28U.S.Code§48(d).)Thus,itisforthe CAFCtodesignatealocationforanoutside-of-Washingtonhearing.Thelistofpossibleareaswhereahearingcouldtakeplaceislimitedtothose indicatedin28U.S.Code§48,whichincludesuchvenuesasacourthouseoralawschool.Forinstance,inApril2019,oneofthesessionsofthe courtwasheldinMinneapolis-SaintPaularealawschoolsandthefederalcourthouse).71 SeePart II,Section1.3of theComparativeStudy(IntheUK, IPdisputesconsideredoutsideof theregularvenuesof the IntellectualProperty EnterpriseCourt(‘IPEC’),thePatentsCourtorthegeneralChanceryDivisionaredealtwithbythejudgesofthesecourtswhotraveltooneofthe sixBusinessandPropertyCourtdistrictregistries.Thereare,however,exceptionsinrelationtothesmallclaimstrackwhichareexplainedbelow).72 SeePartII,Sections1.3and2.1oftheComparativeStudy(IntheUKIPEC,IPcasesallocatedtothesmallclaimstrack,aswellascertainprocedural matters(allocationofcasesandtheenforcementoffinancialissues),canbedealtwithbydistrictjudgesbasedinoneofthesixBusinessand PropertyCourtdistrictregistrieslocatedoutsideofLondon).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


Other jurisdictions, notably those that have no specialised IP courts, have allocated an exclusivejurisdiction to hear certain typesof IP cases to a number of first instance courts. Theyhave therebyincreasedthenumberofcourtsthatcandecideonIPdisputes,aswellasthenumberoflocationsinwhichsuch hearings are available.73Inaddition,aswillbeseenfurther,insomejurisdictions,certainmeasures,suchasapreliminaryinjunctiverelief,canbefiledwithacourtotherthanthespecialisedIPcourtthathas jurisdiction to hear the main lawsuit. This measure increases both the number of courts that are competenttoconsider IP-relatedmatters inurgentcircumstances,aswellasthenumberof locationswhere such measures may be requested.74

SincethecurrentpracticeofusingvideoconferencinginlitigationproceedingsinUkrainehasproducedsomepositive results in improvingaccess tocourts, thesystemmustcontinue todevelop inorder toachieveanoptimaloutcome.However, taking intoaccountbestpractices intheselected jurisdictions,we believe that the mechanism of videoconferencing on its own will not be able to solve the problem of aneffectiveaccesstotheIPCourt.Whereasvideoconferencesconstituteanimportantfactorinmakingthejudiciarymoreaccessible,incertaincircumstancesthistoolmayprovelesspractical,especiallyincases that involve a large number of parties or representatives and/or a considerable amount of evidence. Thisproblemmayexacerbatewiththeincreasednumberoflitigations,whichwilllikelytooccurafterthecreationoftheIPCourt.Therefore,inordertoenhanceaccesstotheIPCourtthecontinuousdevelopmentof thevideoconferencingsystemmaybesupplementedby thepossibilityofholdinghearingof the IPCourtoutsideofKyiv.Thiscouldtaketwoforms.Firstly, theIPCourtmayconducttrialsadhocinthepremisesofcivilorcommercialcourts,withtheIPjudgestravellingtoaparticular locationshouldtheneed arise. Secondly, permanent regional divisions of the IPCourt could be established eitherwithinthepremisesoflocalcommercialcourtsorinseparatebuildings.Whicheversolutionisfinallydeemedmoreappropriate,theconductofhearingsoutsideofKyivmaybecontingentonthepartysatisfyingthecourt that: 1) there isa ‘regional connection’with thecity inquestion;2) theconductofhearingsviavideoconferencingisimpracticalbecauseof,e.g.thenumberoflitigantsortheamountofevidence.75 As regardsthecompositionofcourtattheregionaldivisions,theymaybeformedofeitherthejudgesoftheIPCourt,whowillbetravelingtotheregionaldivisionstoconsideracaseallocatedtosuchjudgesbasedon the general rules of case allocation or of the specially appointed judges that will be based at these regional divisions permanently. The choice of the most appropriate solution may be made in accordance with the amount of litigation in general and in the respective districts.

Based on these findings, we recommend amending the provisions related to the location of hearings:

1) First, to enhance access to justice, we recommend establishing the obligation of the IP Court to conduct court hearings via videoconferences if a party has demonstrated sufficient grounds.

2) Second, in the future, in order to enhance access to the IP Court, we recommend making available hearings outside of Kyiv, e.g. in Odessa, Lviv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Kharkiv. This could take two forms: 1) the IP Court conducting ad hoc hearings in the premises of civil or commercial courts in these cities, or 2) the creation of regional divisions of the IP Court based in the cities on a permanent basis, either within the premises of local commercial courts or in separate buildings. Such hearings outside of Kyiv may only be allowed where it is proved that: 1) there is a ‘regional connection’ with the city in question; and 2) hearings via videoconferencing is impractical because of, e.g. the number of litigants or the amount of evidence.

3) Should the regional divisions of the IP Court be established, we recommend that the cases at these regional divisions be heard either by the IP Court judges who will travel to such regional divisions to consider a case or by judges who will be appointed to these regional divisions on a permanent basis.

We believe that the implementation of these Recommendations will improve litigants’ access to justice.

73 SeePartsIII-V,Section1.3.oftheComparativeStudy(theseareGermany,FranceandtheNetherlands).74 SeePartsIIIandV,Section2.4.2.oftheComparativeStudy.75 SeePartII,Section1.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.intheUK,acasecanbemanagedorheardinanyoftheregionalofficesifthereisa ‘regionalconnection’totheregionatstake,suchas,forexample,ifoneormoreofthepartieshasanaddressorregisteredofficeinthearea;one ormorewitnessesareintheareaorthelocationofthedisputeisinthearea(JudiciaryUk,‘TheBusinessandPropertyCourtsinLeeds’(JudiciaryUK, 6December2017)<https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/leeds-bpc-brochure-20171211.pdf>(accessed23September2020).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.1.4. Recommendations on the number of judgesThenumberofjudgesintheIPCourtwillbe21atthefirstinstance76 and nine at the Appellate Chamber.77 The current number of IP judgeshas raiseddoubts as towhether this number of the IP judgeswill besufficienttoensureaneffectiveandspeedyjudicialprocess.78AccordingtotheUkrainianUnifiedStatesRegisterofCourtDecisions,between2006-2015,thetotalamountofIPcasesconsideredbycommercial,civil andadministrativecourtswas18,104.79Considering that the IP judgeswill hearcases inpanelsofthree,amountingtosevenpanelsinthefirstinstanceandthreepanelsintheAppellateChamber,thiscastsdoubtontheabilityoftheIPCourttoperformitsjudicialfunctionsinaneffectiveandtimelymanner.Forillustration,ithasbeensuggestedthatin2016thetotalamountofIPdisputesfiledwiththefirstinstancecourtswas997(647ofwhichwerefiledwiththecommercialcourtsand350withthecivilcourts).80IftheIPCourt is toconsider thisamountofcasesayear, thismeans itwillneed to resolveapproximately83casesinthefirst instanceeachmonth.Withthecurrentnumberofpanels,thiswillresult inthreecasestoberesolvedbyeachpanelperweek.Itappearsthatthecurrentnumberofpanelswillhavedifficultytoefficientlyadjudicatetheprojectedcaseloadontime.

In general, the number of IP judges in the analysed jurisdictions is higher.81 This is especially true in jurisdictionswithnospecialisedIPcourts,inwhichtheburdenofalargenumberofIPdisputesissharedbetween a number of designated courts.82 Aswill bediscussed further, additionalmeasureshavebeenimplemented in theselected jurisdictions,which improvetheeffectivenessof IPadjudication,e.g.somecases can be decided by a single judge rather than a panel of three judges.83

Therefore, in order to ensure the efficient adjudication of IP disputes by the IP Court in Ukraine:

1) First, we recommend increasing the number of judges. Specifically, we recommend adding at least two more panels for the first instance of the IP Court,84 and one more panel for the Appellate Chamber.

2) Second, we recommend implementing alternative mechanisms, such as allowing a single judge to consider certain matters, rather than a panel of three (this Recommendation will be discussed in further detail below).

We believe that the implementation of these Recommendations will ensure that the IP Court adjudicates IP matters in an effective and timely manner.

76 OrderoftheStateCourtAdministrationofUkraine‘OntheEstablishmentoftheQuantityofJudgesintheIPHighCourt’ <https://dsa.court.gov.ua/userfiles/file/DSA/DSA_2017_all_docs/17ordersmarch/N_929.pdf> (accessed 23 September 2020), approved by the DecisionoftheHighJudicialCouncil(№3065/0/15-17,30September2017).77 UponthePetitionbyHeadoftheStateJudicialAdministrationofUkraine(№8-13462/1820,July2018).78 T.Shtefurko,‘Whowillprotecttheauthors’rights?AdvantagesandDisadvantagesofan‘Intellectual’Court’(2017)ZIK <https://zik.ua/news/2017/11/13/hto_zahystyt_avtorski_prava_plyusy_i_minusy_intelektualnogo_sudu_1204385> (accessed 23 September 2020).79 O.Orlyuk,‘IPProtectioninthecontextofEurointegration’(2016)58-74;Popynachenko(n65)41.80 Kucheruk (n65).According toamore recentcourtstatisticon IP litigation, in2017 thenumberof IPdisputesat thecommercialcourtswas the following: 816 proceedings out of which 535were decided, while at the civil courts – 477 proceedings out of which 206were decided. In 2018, the commercial courts commenced 722 proceedings in IP cases out of which 454were decided, while the civil courts had 460 IP proceedings out of which 200 were decided (see the court analytical data <https://court.gov.ua/inshe/sudova_statystyka/analit_tabl_2018> (accessed 23 September 2020). While there could be observed a slight decrease in thenumberof IPcases in the last twoyearsascomparedtoe.g.2016, it isexpectedthatwith theestablishmentof the IPCourt andthecommencementofitsoperationthenumberofIPdisputeswillincreasesignificantly.81 SeePartII,Section1.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUK,theHighCourtcomprises15specialisedIPjudges;fourjudgessitinthe IPEC,andsixjudgesinthePatentsCourts.TheUKCourtofAppealconsistsof42judges).82 SeePart III, Section1.3. of theComparativeStudy (e.g., inGermany, thenumberof judges,whodealwith IPdisputes in the regional courts varies, for example, while in Düsseldorf there are 11 judges who deal with patent and utilitymodel disputes and four judges for copyright disputes,inMannheimsixjudgesdealwithIPdisputes.TheFederalPatentCourtcurrentlyemploys102judges).83 See Sections 2.1. and 2.4.1. of the Comparative Study.84 This Recommendation is closely related to the Recommendation concerning the composition of the IP Court (see Section 2.2.1.). With respect to the latter,we recommend,asadefaultoption, thatcases in thefirst instancemaybeconsideredbyasingle judge rather thanby apanelof three judges(as it iscurrently thecase).The implementationof theRecommendationaboutasingle judgemayunburdenthefirst instance of the IP Court and thus may make the increase of the number of judges in that instance less urgent. Such changes, however, will notaffect theRecommendations regarding theAppellateChamberof the IPCourt,wherecaseswill beconsideredby thepanelof three judges.Article33(1)CPC.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.2. Recommendations regarding certain provisions of the rules of procedure IntheUkrainianReport,wehaveidentifiedseveralprovisionsintheCommercialProceduralCode(the‘CPC’) thatmayaffecttheeffectiveIPadjudicationprocess,andthusrequireclarificationand/oradjustment.Inthissection,weproviderecommendationsonhowthe judicialprocessof the IPCourtmaybe improvedbasedonbestpracticesinthematureIPjurisdictionsanalysedintheComparativeStudy.

2.2.1. Recommendations on the collegial consideration of IP cases in the IP CourtAsageneralrule, inUkraine,casesinthecommercialcourtsoffirstinstanceareconsideredbyasinglejudge.85Inexceptionalcircumstances,acommercialdisputecanbeconsideredbyapanelofthreejudgesdepending on a category and complexity of the case.86However,whiletheIPCourtwillconsidercasesundertherulesofcommercialprocedure,theCPCprovidesthatapanelofthreejudgeswillconsiderallIPcasesinthefirstinstanceasadefaultoption.87 Such changes are aimed to improve the quality of adjudication inIPdisputes.Thischangecouldcreateasignificantbacklog,asthecurrentlyenvisaged21judgesinthefirstinstancewouldbeabletohearamuchlowernumberofcasesifeveryhearinghadtobeconductedinapanelofthree.Inturn,thismayaffectthespeedofcourtproceedings,therebyleadingtoamoretime-consuming consideration of IP cases.88 This, for example, may impact on the effectiveness of certainmeasures,whichshouldbeconsideredandresolvedbytheCourtwithinashorttime.Forinstance,suchmeasuresaspreliminaryinjunctiverelieves,especiallyincaseswhensuchapplicationsarefiledwiththeIPCourtbeforeorsimultaneouslywithalawsuit,maybeaffected.

The composition of the court in the selected jurisdictions analysed in the Comparative Study varies. The analysisdemonstratesthatinthemajorityofthejurisdictions,IPdisputesareconsideredbyasinglejudgeatfirstinstanceasthedefaultoption.89Insomeofthesejurisdictions,however,thereisapossibilitytohavethecaseheardbya three-judgepanel insuitablecircumstances, typically inmorecomplexdisputes.90 Inother jurisdictionsthedefault is invertedtoathree-judgepanel,as is thecase inUkraine.91 In thosejurisdictions,theoptionofhavingdisputesthatarelegallyandfactuallynotcomplexheardbyonejudgeis available in suitable circumstances.92Insomeofthem,partiesmayjointlyrequestthecourttotransfertheir dispute to a single judge.93Furthermore,inthosejurisdictionswhereapanelofthreejudgesdecidesIPdisputes,preliminarymeasuresmay,nevertheless,beconsideredbyasinglejudge,e.g.,bythepresidentof the court or the chair of the three-judge panel.94Alternatively,insomejurisdictions,thepresidentofthecourtmayappointa‘motionspanel’ofthreejudgesthatcanreviewmotionsfiledbeforethemainlawsuitisfiledwiththecourt.95

85 Article33(1)CPC.86 The‘complexity’criterionisnotdefinedinArticle33(1)CPC,i.e.theprovisionstatesthat:‘[a]nydisputethatfallswithinthejurisdictionofthecourt offirstinstance,dependingonacategoryandcomplexityofthecase,maybeheardcollectivelybyapanelofthreejudges,withtheexceptionof cases dealt with in order and summary proceedings’. A similar approach is taken in the jurisprudence of the administrative courts under Articles 33(1)and33(2)oftheCodeofAdministrativeProceedings.Inothertypesofproceedings,thelawprovidesforcollegialconsiderationbyapanel ofthreejudges,orbyapanelformedofajudgeandtwojurors,onlyinspecifiedcircumstances.Forexample, inthecivilprocedure,thelatter formofapaneldealswithdisputesconcerningrecognitionthatanindividualismissing,declarationofdeath,adoptionofachild,andwithrespect toacompulsorypsychiatricintervention(Article293(4)oftheCivilProcedureCode).Incriminalproceedings,(apartfromcasesconsideredbythe AnticorruptionCourt)onlytwotypesofcasesmaybeconsideredbyathree-judgepanel:1)casesconcerningoffencessubjecttoimprisonment foraperiodexceeding10years;and2)casesconcerningoffencessubjecttolifeimprisonment(Article31oftheCriminalProcedureCode).87 Articles33(2)and33(3)CPC.Attheappellateinstance,IPdisputeswillalsobeconsideredbyapanelofthreejudges.Atthecassationinstance, thedecisionsofthelowercourtswillbereviewedbyapanelconsistingofanunevennumberofjudges,i.e.threeormore.UnderArticle33(11)CPC, itisalsopossibleforadisputetobeconsideredbyalargerpanel.Thismayberequired,forexample,whenadisputeisparticularlycomplex.88 ThisissuewasalsoraisedbyseveralrespondentsemphasisingthatthecollegialconsiderationofIPcasesatthefirstinstancemaycomplicate suchcaseslogistically,aswellassignificantlyextendthetimeforresolvingacase.89 SeePartsI,II,andV,Section2.1.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUS,theUK,theNetherlandsandatthecivilchambersoftheregionalcourts inGermany(subjecttocertainexceptions),casesareheardbyasinglejudge).90 SeePartsIIIandV,Section2.1.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.GermanandDutchlawprovidessuchapossibility.Note,however,thatinGermany mostcourtswillapplytheexception,thusmakingthethree-judgeconsiderationaprevailingapproachinpractice;seealsofootnote92).91 SeePartIV,Section2.1.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.inFrance).92 SeePartsIIIandIV,2.1.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,inGermany,ifenvisagedbyacaseallocationplan,regionalcourtsreviewIPdisputesina three-judgepanel.However,evenifadisputemustbedealtwithbyathree-judgepanel,thecasemaynonethelessstillbetransferredtoasingle judgewhenitisnotcharacterisedbyanyspecialfactualorlegaldifficultyorifthelegalaspectsofthecasedonotconstituteanyfundamental significance.Similarly,inFrance,whereIPdisputesaregenerallyheardbyathree-judgepanelatthetribunals,thepresidentofthecourtorthe presidentofthepanelmaydelegateanymattertoasinglejudge,providedthatitwouldbeappropriateforthecasetobeheardbyasinglejudge).93 SeePartIII,Section2.1.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,atthecommercialchambersoftheregionalcourtsinGermany,whereIPdisputesare usuallyheardbyathree-judgepanel,thepartiesmayjointlyauthorisethepresidentofachambertodecideacaseonthemerits).94 SeePartIV,Section2.1.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,inFrance,thepresidentsofthetribunalsmaydecideonapreliminaryinjunctivereliefinan inter partesproceeding,andinanex parteproceedingincaseswherethemainproceedingshavenotyetcommenced.Similarly,inGermany,in casesofurgency,thepresidentsofbothcivilandcommercialchambersattheregionalcourtsmaydecideonapreliminaryinjunctiverelief).95 SeePartI,Section2.1.oftheComparativeStudy(ThisapproachistakenintheUSattheCAFC.Specifically,everymonththeCAFCchiefjudge appointsa‘motionspanel’ofthreejudgesassignedonarotatingbasistoreviewmotionsreceivedduringtheprescribedmonth.Thesepanels,in general,willhearthosemotionsthatarefiledbeforetheparties’briefshavebeendeliveredtothe‘meritspanel’).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


Based on these considerations, we recommend amending the provision of the CPC regarding the composition of courts:

1) First, we recommend that IP disputes at the first instance may considered by a single judge as a default option. In certain cases, for example, due to the complexity of the case, the case may be referred to a panel of three judges. Specifically, once the judge is allocated a case, he/she then can decide on whether, due to the complexity of the case, it should be referred to a panel of judges. In this respect, it would be useful to develop guidance that would assist in defining the level of complexity of an IP dispute. The initial allocation of a case to a single judge, as well as the subsequent reallocation to a panel would be conducted by the automatic allocation system.

2) We recommend that the parties have the right to request the judge allocated to hear the dispute to transfer the case to a three-judge panel before or during the preparatory proceedings.

3) We recommend defining a list of procedural matters that can be resolved by a single judge in the circumstances where the case was allocated to a panel of three judges. For example, this may include the esolution of matters that require urgency, such as a preliminary injunctive relief.

2.2.2. Recommendations on the jurisdiction of the IP CourtInUkraine, the jurisdictionof the IPCourtunderArticle20(2)CPCcoversawidescopeof IPandunfaircompetitiondisputes.WhilethewordingofthisprovisionimpliesthatthelistofcasesspecifiedintheCPCisnotexhaustive,caseswhicharenotexplicitlymentionedmayriskbeingconsideredasfallingunderthejurisdictionofthecourtsthatheardsuchcasespriortotheenactmentoftheCPC.Moreover,somedisputesarenotincludedinArticle20(2)CPC.Forcertaintypesofdisputes,thismaycreatejurisdictionalconfusion.

ItisworthnotingthattheanalysisoftheselectedjurisdictionsrevealedthattheallocationofIPdisputesbetweenthespecialisedIPcourtsandothertypesofcourtstypicallytakesintoaccountseveralfactors.First,whendeterminingthejurisdictionofaspecialisedIPcourt,itisconsideredwhetheranIPissueinadisputerelatestoprivatelaw(i.e.civilandcommerciallaw)orpubliclaw.Specifically,IPdisputesbetweenprivate parties are typically considered to be a matter of private law and thus fall within the jurisdiction of thespecialisedIPcourts,whileissuesthatarisefromtheexerciseofpowersbystateauthoritiesfalloutsidethejurisdictionofsuchcourts.Thelatter,forexample,includestaxorcustomsdisputes,eveniftheyareIP-related.Secondly,theanalysedjurisdictionstendtohavetwodifferentapproacheswhendefiningthebreadthofsubject-mattersthatfallwithinthejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPcourts.SomejurisdictionstakealiberalapproachwhendefiningwhatqualifiesasanIPdisputewithintheambitofprivatelaw.Insuchjurisdictions,mostcasesthatinvolveIPmatters,includingaremoterelationtoIPrightssuchascontractualinterpretationofIPlicensingagreements,willfallwithinthejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPcourts.96 On theotherhand,somejurisdictionstakeamorerestrictiveapproachastowhatconstitutesanIPdispute.Inthosejurisdictions,thesewillbethedisputescomprisingIP-relatedmattersstemmingdirectlyfromthestatutesthatregulate IPrights(i.e.apatentact),suchasthevalidityor infringementofan IPright,andcloselyrelatedmattersofnon-IPnature.97WhiletheapproachestodefiningwhetheranIP-relatedmatterfallswithinthejurisdictionofaspecialisedIPcourtdiffer,itappearsthatmostoftheanalysedjurisdictionstendtowardsthebroadapproach,whichincludesmattersnotstrictlyrelatedtoIPrights.

2.2.2.1. Recommendations regarding the potential overlap between the jurisdictions of the IP Court and the administrative courts

The analysis of the provisions of the CPC concluded that the jurisdictions of the IP Court and theadministrativecourtsmaypotentiallyoverlapwithrespect tocertaintypesof IPdisputes,whicharenotspecificallymentionedintheCPC,inparticular:

96 SeePartIII,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.inGermany).97 SeePartsIandIV,Sections2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.inUSandFrance).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


(i) Recommendations on the IP disputes related to the refusal to register an IP right

WhileArticle20(2)(2)CPCprovidesthattheIPCourtmayconsiderdisputesregardingtheregistrationofIPrights,98thisprovisiondoesnotmentionappealsontherefusaltoregisteranIPright.Potentially,appealsontherefusal to registeran IPrightmaybecoveredbythephrase ‘disputesconcerningregistration…ofIPrights’. Inthecaseoftherefusalofregistration,however, thisprovisioncanalsobeconstruedasnotincludingsuchdisputes,astheregistrationhasnotoccurred,andthereforethereisnodisputeconcerningregistrationassuch.Thelackofreferencetosuchadisputemay,therefore,createconfusionastowhichcourt should consider such cases. Under the Administrative Procedural Code, these cases have fallenwithinthejurisdictionoftheadministrativecourts,onthegroundsofbeingappealsondecisions,actionsorinaction of state authorities.99AstheCPCdoesnotexplicitlymentionsuchcases,theymaybeconsideredas remaining formally within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.100

The common feature in all the jurisdictions analysed as part of the Comparative Study is that the appeals againstthedecisionsofanIPoffice,includingtherefusaltoregisteranIPright,fallwithinthejurisdictionofcourtsthatarecompetenttoconsiderIPdisputes,eitheratthefirstorappellatelevel.101

Based on the analysis of best practices in the selected jurisdictions, we recommend that the appeals against the decisions regarding the refusal to register an IP right should fall within the jurisdiction of the IP Court. We believe that the implementation of this Recommendation will eliminate the confusion as to which court the party ought to refer its lawsuit should it wish to contest the refusal to register its IP right.

(ii) Recommendations on customs- and tax-related disputes with an IP element

(a) Disputes concerning the intersection of IP-related and customs border matters

ThiscategoryofIP-relateddisputesconcernschallengesagainstthedecisionsofcustomsauthorities.Onetypeofsuchcasesinvolvesdisputeswherethecustomsauthorityhasalreadyclearedgoods,andtheIPrightholderhassubsequentlydetectedthatsuchgoodsmayinfringetheirIPrights.Asaresult,theIPrightholderrequeststhecourttocancelsuchacustomsclearanceofthedeclarant’sgoods.Currently,suchcasesfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheadministrativecourts.However,theanalysisinsuchcasesiscenteredontheassessmentofgoodsclearedbythecustomsauthorityandwhethertheyinfringetherightholder’sIPrights.Toestablishthis,thecourtmustpossessanin-depthunderstandingofIPlawinordertoassessadequatelysuchissues.

AnothercategoryrelatestotheregistrationofIPprotectedobjectsinthecustoms’register.102 A customs authoritymayrefusetheapplicationforsuchregistration,andtheIPrightholdermayappealtothecourtagainstthedecision.Asageneralrule,suchcasesfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheadministrativecourts.However,aswiththepreviouscategoryofcases,adjudicationrequiresadetailedanalysisoftherelevantIPrights.Inparticular,thecourtmustassesstheobjectforwhichregistrationisrequested;whetheranypatentsandtrademarkcertificatesexistthatsupportregistration;whetherthereisanyotherrightholderwhochallengesthesepatentsandtrademarkcertificates;103whether therearesufficientgroundsfor therefusaltoincludeanIP-protectedobjectontheregister,etc.SuchcasesrequireathoroughanalysisofIP-relatedmatters,aswellasanin-depthunderstandingofIPlaw.

98 E.g.disputesconcerningthirdpartychallengesontheregistrationofanIPrightbasedonitsviolationoftheirownIPright.99 Article19(1)oftheAdministrativeProceduralCode.100 Seee.g.DecisionoftheDistrictAdministrativeCourtofKyiv(17July2018)regardingtheannulmentofthedecisionontherefusaltoregisteratrade markundertheapplicationfortheregistrationm201409130andtheobligationtoundertakesuchregistrationofatrademark(Case№826/4752/16) <http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/75362535>(accessed23September2020);DecisionoftheKyivAppellateAdministrativeCourt(3May2018) ontheannulmentofthestateregistrationofatrademark<http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/73842538>(accessed23September2020).101 SeePartsIandIII,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,inGermany,thereviewofthedecisionsoftheGermanIPOfficeandtheFederalPlant VarietyOfficefallunderthejurisdictionoftheFederalPatentCourt,i.e.thefirstinstancespecialisedIPcourt.Ontheotherhand,intheUS,the CAFC, i.e.theappellate instancespecialisedIPcourt, isexclusivelycompetenttohearappealsfromtheUSPTO’sTrademarkTrialandAppeal BoardandthePatentTrialandAppealBoard).102 DecreeoftheMinistryofFinanceofUkraine,‘OntheapprovaloftheRegistrationProcedureoftheIntellectualPropertyRightsintheCustoms Register’(N648,30.04.2012)<http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1034-12#n20>(accessed23September2020).103 Forexample,incaseN804/576/16consideredbytheDnipropetrovskDistrictAdministrativeCourtapatentprotectedobject,whichwasrequested tobeincludedinthecustoms’registerofIPobjects,wasalreadyprotectedbyaregisteredtrademark,andtheownerofsuchatrademarkwas broughttothecourtproceedingsasathirdparty.Thetrademarkownerconsequentlychallengedthepatentinaseparateproceeding,andthe patentwaseventually invalidated.Onthebasisofthisdecision,theadministrativecourt inturnrejectedtheinclusionofanIPobject intothe customs’registeronthebasisthatthepatentwasinvalid.(<http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/72707259>accessed23September2020).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


TheanalysisoftheselectedjurisdictionsshowsthatIP-relateddisputesthatconcernchallengesagainstthedecisionsofcustomsauthorities,ingeneral,falloutsideofthejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPcourts,andinsteadareconsideredbyeithercivil,administrativeorcriminalcourts,evenifachallengeddecisioninvolvesanIP-relatedmatter.104SomelimitedinvolvementofthespecialisedIPcourtsisneverthelesspossibleinsomejurisdictions.Specifically,iftheadministrativecourtfindsthatitsrulingdependsonIP-relatedmatterthatcanonlyberesolvedbytheIPcourt,itmayasktheIPcourttoruleonthismatterasaprejudicialquestion.105

(b) Disputes concerning cancellation of royalty tax noticesThis type of case includes the assessment of whether a certain payment can be considered a royalty. According to theTaxCodeofUkraine, royaltiesarenotsubject toVAT,106 i.e. a company that receives a royaltyisnotrequiredtopayVATontheamountofthatroyalty.However,asaresultofataxaudit,thetaxauthoritiesmaydecidethatthemoneyreceivedbythecompanyisnotaroyaltyand,therefore,mayrequirethecompanytopayVATaccordingly.Thecompanymayconsequentlychallengethisdecisionbeforethecourt.Currently,suchcasesfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheadministrativecourts.107However,oftenanin-depthunderstandingofIPlawisessentialinordertoestablish,interalia,whethertheobjectofaroyaltyisIPprotected;whetherthecompanyhastherelevantIPrightstosuchanobject;andwhetherthesumsofmoneywerepaidfortheuseofthisobject.Inessence,thesubjectmatterinthistypeofcaseisanIP-ratherthanatax-relatedoneand,therefore,knowledgeoftaxlawmaybesecondary.

In the analysed jurisdictions, tax disputes, including IP-related tax disputes, fall outside of the exclusivejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPcourts.Instead,thegeneralrulesofallocatingjurisdictionbetweendifferenttypesofcourtsapplytothistypeofdispute.Asaresult,despitesuchdisputesinvolvemattersrelatedtoIPrights,theyarereviewedbyvarioustypesofcourts,includingcivil,administrativeorspecialtypesofcourts.108

One of the reasonswhy the specialised IP courts do not deal with tax and customs disputes in thesejurisdictionsisthattheobjectivesoftaxandcustomslawsaredifferentfromthoseof IP law. Indeed, insome cases the administrative courts may decide to deviate from a standard understanding of certain termsinIPlawforthepurposeoftaxlaw.109

Basedontheforegoinganalysis,whenallocatingthejurisdictionwithrespecttocustomsandtaxdisputesitisimportanttotakeintoaccounttwofollowingissues.Ontheonehand,customsandtaxcasesrequirethecourttodecideonanindividual’spubliclawliability.Therefore,suchdisputesusuallyfallunderthejurisdictionof a separate branchof judiciary, i.e. administrative courts that are vestedwith the authority to decidedisputes concerningpublic policy considerationson the basis of administrative procedures specificallydesignedforthistypeofdispute.Ontheotherhand,ascouldbeseenfromtheexamplesdiscussedabove,somecustomsandtaxcasesrequireanin-depthanalysisofIPlaw,i.e.thetaskthatiscarriedoutmostaccuratelybythespecialisedIPcourts.Therefore,inordertoachieveaneffectiveandqualityadjudicationintaxandcustomsdisputeswithanIPelement,thecourtthathasjurisdictiontoconsidersuchdisputesmustbalancebetweenpreservingthepublicpolicyconsiderationsspecifictotaxandcustomslaw,whilepossessinganin-depthknowledgeandunderstandingofIPlaw.

104 SeePartI,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(AnexceptiontothisapproachcanbefoundintheUS,whereappealsagainstthedecisionsof acustomsenforcementauthority,theU.S.CustomsandBorderProtection,firstfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheCourtofInternationalTrade,and thejudgmentsofthelatterarethenreviewedbytheCAFC.However,whiletheCAFChasanexclusivecompetencetoconsiderIPdisputes,this Courtisalsocompetenttohearothernon-IPmatters.Therefore,thereasonwhytheCAFCreviewsthesetypesofdisputesisbecausetheyfall withinitsjurisdictionasoneofthemattersitiscompetenttoreview,andnotbecausetheyareIP-related.Nevertheless,itisworthnotingthatone oftheaimsofsuchbroadjurisdictionoftheCAFCwastoavoida‘tunnelvision’andanarrowfocusinitspracticethatmaybedevelopedbyaclassic specialisedIPcourt,whichwouldplacetoomuchimportanceontheIPdimensionofthelitigationathand,whilenotgivingenoughconsideration tootheraspectsoflaw.AscouldbeseenfromtheCAFCpractice,thisaimhasbeensuccessfullyfulfilledbysuchanapproach).105 SeePartIV,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,inFrance,appealsagainstthedecisionsofthecustomsadministrationareheardeither bytheciviloradministrativecourts,dependingonthenatureoftheappeal.Theadministrativecourtmayaskthecivilcourttoruleonthismatteras aprejudicialquestion if theadministrativecourtfindsthat itsrulingdependsonamatterthatcanonlyberesolvedbythecivilcourt,e.g.,an intellectualpropertymatter.Insuchcircumstances,thetribunalthathasexclusivejurisdictionoverthatspecificIPrightwilldecideonthequestion).106 Article196.1.6oftheTaxCodeofUkraine(2December2010№2755-VIwithamendments).107 See e.g. Order of theDistrict Administrative Court of Kyiv of 3March 2017 on the recognition and annulment of tax notifications-decisions (Case№826/19290/16)<http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/65132642>(accessed23September2020).108 SeePartI,Sections2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.suchastheCourtofFederalClaimsintheUS).109 SeePartIV,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.inFrance,theso-called‘fiscalintellectualpropertylaw’hasbeendeveloped,whichisa partoftheadministrativelawregime,andremainsunderthejurisdictionoftheadministrativeandgeneraltribunals,ratherthanundertheexclusive jurisdictionofthedesignatedtribunals.ThecompetentcourtsmayestablishseparatedefinitionsofIPtermsfortaxlawpurposes,forinstance,a trademarkwasdefinedas‘asignbymeansofwhichaproducercharacteriseshisorherproductsandatradercharacterisestheobjectsofhisor her trade’. Incontrast, thedefinitionofa trademark in theFrenchCodeof IntellectualProperty is ‘asign thatserves todistinguishproducts orservicesofaphysicalorlegalpersonfromthoseofanotherphysicalorlegalperson’.Inadditiontothedifferencesbetweenthewordingsofthe definitions,forthepurposeoftaxlawtheregistrationofatrademarkisnotrequired.Inotherwords,atransactionrelatingtoatrademarkwould beconsideredvalidforthetaxlawpurposesevenwithouttheregistrationofatrademark,whichisgenerallyrequiredunderIPlaw(seeJacques AzémaandJean-ChristopheGalloux,Droitdelapropriétéindustrielle-8eéd.(8eédition,Dalloz2017)1.2,§1).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


WebelievethatitwouldbeappropriatetoextendthejurisdictionoftheIPCourttocustomsandtaxdisputesinvolvinganIPelement.ThisisbecauseoneofthemaingoalsofestablishingtheIPCourtinUkraineistocreateaspecialisedinstitutionthatwoulddevelophighqualityadjudicationindisputesrelatedtoIP,whichisnotrestrictedtoanyspecifictypeofIPdispute.110Therefore,therearenostructuraland/orinstitutionalobstacles that would prima facie prevent the extension of the IP Court’s jurisdiction to such disputes.Specifically,with respect to thedelineationof jurisdictionsbetween the IPCourtand theadministrativecourts,webelievethatthejurisdictionoftheIPCourtmaycoveronlythosecustomsandtaxdisputesthatcompriseIP-relatedmattersstemmingfromtheIPlawstatutes,andthusrequiretheapplicationofIPlaw.111 On the basis of this mode of delineation one can adopt a narrow or broad understanding of a tax or customs disputeinvolvinganIPelement.AnarrowunderstandingwouldcoveronlythedisputesthatcomprisetheIP-relatedmatterstemmingdirectlyfromanIPstatute,andinwhichtheapplicationofIPlawisnecessarytoresolvethedispute.Thatwouldbethecase,for instance,withtheabove-mentioneddisputeoverVATonroyaltiesprovidedthatthetaxauthoritycontestede.g.thevalidityoftheIPrighttowhichtheroyaltyrefers.Inthisexample,theIPmatterstemsdirectlyfromIPlawandtheapplicationofthelawisnecessarytoresolvethedispute,asthetaxlawliabilityofthepartiesdependsonthevalidityoftheIPrightinquestion.AbroadunderstandingwouldcomprisealsothosedisputeswhereanIPelementisevenindirectlyderivedfromIPlawandtheapplicationofsuchlawisnotnecessarytoresolvethedispute.Followingthisapproach,the IPCourtwouldalsobecompetent in relation todisputeswhere thecaseconcernsVATonroyalties,andwhile thevalidityofan IPright isnotcontested, theparties, forexample,contest the legalityof theconductofthetaxauthoritiesorthedateofaccrualoftaxliabilityundertheprovisionsofthetaxlaw.Inthisinstance,theIPelementisonlyincidental,andtheIPlawdoesnothavetobeappliedtoresolvethecase.Webelievethat,giventheexceptionalcharacterofextendingthejurisdictionoftheIPCourttocustomsandtaxdisputesandthenecessitytoreflectthepubliclawnatureofthistypeofdisputes,anarrowunderstandingofwhatconstitutesanIPdisputewouldbeamoreappropriatesolution.

In Ukraine, customs- and tax-related disputes involving IP elements currently fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. The analysis of the selected jurisdictions demonstrates that a similar approach to allocating jurisdiction in this type of dispute is also taken in the selected jurisdictions. Specifically, the specialised IP courts that are competent to consider IP disputes are not competent to hear customs- or tax-related disputes, even if they are IP-related. However, because the creation of the IP Court in Ukraine primarily aims to allocate an exclusive jurisdiction to this Court over IP-related disputes and, considering that such customs and tax IP-related disputes may require a thorough analysis of IP matters, for which an in-depth understanding of IP law is necessary, we suggest considering the following:

1) We recommend that the IP Court may be competent in relation to tax and customs disputes that involve an IP element. The jurisdiction of the IP Court would only comprise disputes where IP specialisation is necessary to resolve the dispute.

2) We recommend to clearly define the jurisdictions of the IP Court and the administrative courts. Specifically, we recommend that the narrow understanding of an IP dispute may be adopted, i.e. only those customs and tax disputes that comprise the IP-related matters stemming directly from an IP law statute and thus require the application of IP law to resolve the dispute. This will ensure that the tax and customs disputes are considered by the IP Court only when an IP element of a dispute is essential for the outcome of the case.112

We believe that the implementation of the above Recommendations may improve the quality of adjudication in customs and tax disputes with an IP element.

110 ThisdiffersfromtheaimofestablishingsomeIPcourtsthathavejurisdictionoverspecifictypesofIPdisputes,forexample,theFederalPatent CourtinGermany.111 SeeParts I, IIIand IV,Section2.2of theComparativeStudy. InGermany, trademarkdisputescomprisealldisputes thatareat leastpartially governedbytheTradeMarkAct,e.g.claimsrelatedtotransfer,charge,formationorlicensingofarightprotectedundertrademarklaw.InFrance, adisputeconcerningacontractoveranIPrightwillconstituteanIPdisputeonlywhenthecourtmustapplysubstantiveIPprovision,forexample, wherethedeterminationofthecontractualobligationsrequirestheassessmentofvalidityofanIPright(seealsonote128).Inasimilarfashion,in theUS,thecourtthatdetermineswhetherthedisputeathandisanIPdisputeornot,itmustassesswhetheracauseofactionarisesundertheIP laws,orwhetherthecauseofactionisbasedupon,e.g.,contractlaw.112 ThenarrowunderstandingofwhatisanIPdisputewouldalsobeinlinewiththeexceptionalcharacteroftheIPCourt’sjurisdictionincustomsand taxcases,asexceptionsaregenerallyinterpretednarrowly.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.2.2.2. Recommendations on the potential overlap between the jurisdictions of the IP Court and other state authorities

InUkraine,therecognitionofatrademarkaswell-knownmaybeconductedintwotypesofproceedings.Firstly,whenthereisnodisputebetweentheparties,therecognitionmaybeperformedupontherequestofatrademarkowner.Second,ifthereisadisputebetweentheparties,suchrecognitionisperformedincourtproceedingsaspartoftheresolutionofsuchadispute.Article25oftheLaw‘OnTrademarks’defineswhichstate authority has the power to recognise a trade mark as well-known.113ItstatesthatsucharecognitionmaybeperformedeitherbytheAppellateChamberorthecourt.Thus,undertheMinisterialdecreeof2005,114 theAppellateChamberoftheMinistryofEconomic,TradeandAgriculturalDevelopmentofUkraine115 (the Ministry) has the right to recognise a trade mark as well-known. Such a recognition is performed upon the requestofatrademarkowner.Asfarasthecourtsareconcerned,underthepreviousprocedurallaws,iftherewasnodispute,therecognitionofatrademarkaswell-knownwasperformedbythecivilcourtsinaccordance with a special type of a civil procedure that regulates the establishment of legal facts upon the request of an interested party.116Whentherecognitionofatrademarkaswell-knownformedpartofadispute,thejurisdictionofthecourtwasestablishedbasedonthegeneralrulesofjurisdictioninforceatthat time.117

The new CPC establishes that the right to recognise a trademark as well-known now falls within thejurisdictionoftheIPCourt.118However,theCPCdoesnotdefinetheprocedureforsuchrecognitionbytheIPCourt.Incaseswherethereisadisputebetweentheparties,therecognitionofatrademarkaswell-knownbytheIPCourtwouldbeconductedunderthegeneralrulesofprocedurethatgoverntheadjudicationofcommercialdisputes.Itis,however,unclearunderwhatproceduresuchrecognitionshouldbeperformedincaseswherethereisnodispute.Inmanycases,atrademarkownerunilaterallyrequeststhecourttorecogniseatrademarkaswell-known.Aswasmentionedabove,underthepreviousprocedurallaws,suchrequests were considered by the civil courts under a special civil procure of establishing legal facts.119 However,theCPCdoesnotenvisagesuchaseparateprocedure.Asaresult,ifanIPownerweretopetitiontheIPCourttorecogniseatrademarkaswell-knownincaseswherethereisnodispute,thegeneralprocedurefor considering disputes between the parties would not apply to such requests.120ItisalsoworthmentioningthatUkrainianlawdoesnotprovideapossibilityofobtainingadeclaratoryjudgement.Theabsenceofaseparateprocedureforrecognisingatrademarkaswell-knownintheCPCmayforcetheownerofatrademarktocontriveadisputeinordertorecognisetheirtrademarkaswell-knownintheIPCourt.Inaddition,twostateauthorities,i.e.theMinistryandtheIPCourt,currentlyhavethepowertorecogniseatrademarkas well-known without any delimitation of their respective jurisdictions.

Theanalysisoftheselectedjurisdictionsshowsthatnoneofthemhasaspecialprocedurefortheofficialrecognition of trade marks as well-known where there is no dispute between the parties.121Inpractice,thenotorietyoftrademarksisassessedeitherbytheIPofficesaspartoftheoppositionproceedingsorbythecourts in the infringement or invalidity proceedings.122

113 TheLawofUkraine‘OntheProtectionofRightforSignsonGoodsandServices’(15December1993,N3689-XII).114 Decreeof theMinistryofEducationandScienceofUkraine, ‘On theApprovalof theOrderon theRecognitionofa trademarkaswell-known inUkrainebytheAppellateChamberoftheStateDepartmentofIntellectualProperty’(N228,15.04.2005) <http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0471-05> (accessed23September2020).Thischamber isnowrenamedasbeingpartof theMinistry ofEconomic,TradeandAgriculturalDevelopmentofUkraine.115 TheformerMinistryofEconomicDevelopmentandTradeofUkraine.116 Inadditiontotheproceedings,wherethecourtheardisputesbetweentheparties,Article293oftheCivilProceduralCodeestablishes‘Separate Proceedings’.Thisisaspecialtypeofcivilproceedings,wherethecourthearscasesrelatedtotheconfirmationofexistenceorabsenceofcertain legal facts. Article 293(2)(5) in particular provides the right to establish a legal fact. 117 Specifically,inthepastthejurisdictionofacourtwasestablishedonthebasisofthepartiestothedisputes(i.e.,subjecttosomeexceptions, naturalpersonslitigatedtheirdisputesinthecivilcourtsandlegalentities-inthecommercialcourts;whereastateauthoritywasapartytoa dispute,suchadisputewasconsideredbytheadministrativecourts).However,thenewproceduralrules,andthenewCPCinparticular,establish the courts’ jurisdiction on the basis of a subject-matter of a dispute without taking into account the type of the parties to the dispute.118 Article20(2)(3)CPC.119 Article293oftheCivilProceduralCode.120 Popynachenko(n65)42.121 Jurisdictions in which the law establishes a special procedure on the recognition of a trade mark as well-known when there is no dispute include China,Japan,theCzechRepublic,Belarus,BulgariaandUkraine.SeeClarkWLackert,MarenCPerry,‘Protectingwell-knownandfamousmarks: aglobalperspective’(King&SpaldingLLP,2008).<http://www.buildingipvalue.com/08_global/63-66KingSpalding.pdf>(accessed23September2020).122 SeePartsIandII,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g., intheUS,therecognitionisconductedbytheUSPTOaspartoftheopposition proceedings,andbythedistrictcourts inthe infringementor invalidityproceedings.Similarly, intheUK, trademarksarerecognisedaswell- knownonacase-by-casebasisbyeithertheUKIPOintheoppositionproceedings,ortheIPECandthegeneralChanceryDivisionintheinfringement or invalidity proceedings).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, as well as the currently established practice in Ukraine, we recommend the following:

1) First, we recommend that the recognition of a trade mark as well-known in cases where there is a dispute may fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the IP Court, as currently envisaged by the CPC.

2) Second, since the Ministry has already implemented a specific procedure in cases where there is no dispute and has developed a positive practice of applying this procedure, we recommend that such cases may remain within the jurisdiction of the Ministry. The appeals against the decisions of the Ministry would fall within the jurisdiction of the IP Court.

We believe that the implementation of these Recommendations will allow to avoid overlapping jurisdictions of the two different bodies. It will also avoid implementing extensive amendments to the CPC in the form of a separate procedure on the recognition of a trade mark as well-known in situations where there is no dispute.

2.2.2.3 Recommendations on the disputes that are not included in Article 20(2) CPC

WhileArticle20(2)CPCcontainsacomprehensive listof IP-relateddisputes,somedisputes inwhich IPrights play a key role are not mentioned in this list. This may create a jurisdictional confusion concerning certaintypesofdisputes.Theseparticularlyinclude:

(i) Recommendations on the disputes concerning authors’ rights under Article 20(2)(4) CPC

Whilethisprovisioncoversdisputesrelatedtoauthors’rights(therightsofthecreatorofawork),itdoesnotmentiontherightsofotherlawfulcopyrightowners.AccordingtotheLawofUkraine‘OnCopyrightsandRelatedRights’,123thesubjectsofcopyrightareauthors,theirheirsandpersons,towhomauthorsortheir heirs transferred their copyright.124Therefore,theprovisioninArticle20(2)(4)CPCthatonlyreferstoauthors,withoutmentioningotherlawfulcopyrightholders,mayresultinonlydisputesrelatedtoauthors’rightsfallingwithinthejurisdictionoftheIPCourt,whiletheCourtwouldnotconsiderdisputesrelatedtotherightsofotherlawfulcopyrightowners.Thisisimportant,because,asmentionedabove,theauthorisnottheonlypersonwhocanbealawfulownerofthecopyright;othersmayincludeanemployer, lawfulsuccessorsoftheauthor,orotherthirdpartieswhohavelawfullyacquiredthecopyright.

The analysis of the selected jurisdictions shows that neither of these jurisdictions makes the competence of thespecialisedIPcourtsdependentonwhethertheclaimantistheauthorofthecopyright(i.e.,thecreatorof a work) or another copyright holder.125

Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, we recommend amending Article 20(2)(4) CPC by adding to the list of disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the IP Court all relevant copyright holders who have the right to refer their disputes to the IP Court. We believe that the implementation of this Recommendation will allow broadening the scope of the rightsholders who have the right to refer their copyright disputes to the IP Court, as well as avoiding overlapping jurisdictions regarding copyright disputes between the IP Court and other types of courts.

(ii) Recommendations on the disputes concerning recognition of agreements as invalid

123 TheLawofUkraine‘OnCopyrightRightsandRelatedRights’dated23December1993,№3792-XII.124 ibid Article 7. 125 SeePartsIandII,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUS,theexclusivejurisdictionofthedistrictcourtscomprises‘anycivilaction arisingunderanyActofCongressrelatingto[…]copyrights’.IntheUK,theCPR63andPD63,thatestablishtheexclusivejurisdictionoftheIPECand thegeneralChanceryDivision,referonlytoclaimsrelatingtocopyright,withoutanyreferencetoaparticulartypeofcopyrightowner.Asimilar approachistakeninotherjurisdictions,i.e.noneofthemmakesthefactofbeinganauthorofthecopyrightasaconditionofthelegalstandingina copyright dispute).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


AccordingtoArticle20(2)(5)CPCdisputesregarding‘enteringinto,modification,terminationandexecution of an agreement concerning the exercise of intellectual property rights…’ fall within the jurisdiction of the IPCourt. This provision, however, doesnotmentiondisputeson the validity of suchagreements.126 Furthermore,thisprovisiondoesnotmentionthepossibilitytorecogniseaninvalidcontractasvalid,eventhoughthispossibilityisenvisagedinArticle215(2)oftheCivilCodeofUkraine.127

The analysis of the selected jurisdictions revealed that while approaches to allocating the jurisdiction overagreementsconcerning IP rightsvary,noneof themdivide the jurisdictionover IP-relateddisputesconcerningthevalidityofagreementsanddisputesrelatedto‘enteringinto,modification,terminationandexecutionofanagreement’betweendifferentcourts.Thus,inmostofthesejurisdictions,theapproachtoallocating these disputes between the specialised and general courts is based on the connection of the disputetothesubstantiveprovisionsofIPlaws.Whiletheallocationofjurisdictionmaydifferbasedontheconstructionofthedegreeofsuchaconnection,inprinciple,theapproachesaresimilar,i.e.ifthematterconcernsapplicationoftheIPlawprovisions, itwillbeconsideredanIPdisputeandthuswillfallwithinthejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPcourts.Ontheotherhand,ifthematterconcernsapurequestionofcontractlaw,thegeneralcourtswillbecompetenttoconsidersuchdisputes.128

Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, we recommend including disputes related to the assessment of the validity of an IP-related contract to the list of disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of IP Court. It is sensible since all other types of disputes related to IP agreements, such as ‘entering into, modification, termination and execution of an agreement concerning the exercise of intellectual property rights…’ are due to fall within the jurisdiction of the IP Court. Therefore, based on the above considerations:

1) We recommend that Article 20(2)(5) CPC may be amended by including in the list of disputes that fall within the jurisdiction of the IP Court disputes concerning the recognition of IP-related agreements as invalid, as well as the possibility to recognise an invalid IP-related contract as valid.

We believe that the implementation of this Recommendation will allow avoiding a clash of competences between the jurisdictions of the IP Court, the commercial courts and the civil courts.

2.2.3. Recommendations regarding evidence in IP cases2.2.3.1. Recommendations regarding evidence in an electronic form under Article 96(2) CPC

Thisprovisionrelatestoevidenceinanelectronicform.ThistypeofevidenceisveryimportantforIPdisputesbecauseoften it canbe theonlywayofprovingan IP infringement.Forexample,whenfilmsandsoundrecordingsareplacedonTheInternetwithoutacopyrightholder’spermission,orgoodscontainingathirdparty’strademarkwithoutitspermissionaresoldviaonlinestores,evidenceinanelectronicformmaybetheprimarysourceofprovinganinfringementof IPrights.However,uncertaintymayariseastowhethertheprocedureforsubmittingevidenceinanelectronicformcomplieswithArticle96CPC.Accordingtothisprovision,evidenceinanelectricformmustbesubmittedtothecourtinanoriginalform,oranelectroniccopycertifiedbyanelectronicdigitalsignature.Moreover,thisprovisionspecifiesthatwhilesubmittingelectronicevidenceispermissibleinaprintedcopythatmustbecertifiedinaccordancewiththelaw,thecourtuponthe request of another party or on its own volition may request the party to submit electronic evidence in an originalform.Iftheoriginalformisnotsubmittedsuchevidencewillnotbeconsidered.Thisprovisionmay,therefore,causedifficultyinfulfillingtherequirementsoftheformforsubmittingsuchevidence,especiallyconcerning evidence pertaining to the content or appearance of awebsite.While the CPC requires thatelectronicevidencemustbesubmittedinanoriginalformoranelectroniccopycertifiedbyanelectronicdigitalsignature,itdoesnotprovideanyclarificationonhowthisshouldbefulfilledinpractice.

126 LackofsuchdisputesinArticle20(2)(5)CPCwasspecificallymentionedbyoneoftherespondents.127 Forexample,whenaminorentersintoacontract,whichunderthelawtheyhavenolegalcapacitytoenterinto,suchacontractisconsidered invalid.However,underArticle221(1)oftheCivilCodeofUkraine,suchacontractmayberecognisedasvalidifitissubsequentlyapprovedbythe parents of a minor (or adopting parents) or one of them. See also Article 221(2) that allows recognising a contract made by a minor as valid by the court.128 SeePartIV,Section2.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,inFrance,anIPdisputeisdefinedasanydisputethatrequiresthecourttoapplyspecial provisionsofIPlaw.OnthisbasisthejurisdictionrelatedtoIPdisputesisdistinguishedfromgeneralcontractualdisputes.Specifically,adispute concerninganIP-relatedcontractwillonlyconstituteanIPdisputeandthusfallwithinanexclusivejurisdictionofadesignatedcourt,wherethe courtmustapplyspecialIPlawprovisions).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


Inthemajorityoftheselectedjurisdiction,theanalysisofbestpracticesshowsthatthereisnorequirementtosubmitelectronicevidenceinanoriginalformoritscertificationwithanelectronicsignature.129Instead,themainissueistypicallytheauthenticityofsuchevidence,whichmustbeprovedifanotherpartycontestssaidauthenticity.Therefore,inalltheanalysedjurisdictions,essentiallyanyformofelectronicevidencethataccurately reflects the information relied upon will normally be admissible (e.g. none of the jurisdictions precludesapartyfromrelyingonascreenshotinordertoproveonlineinfringement).Iftheauthenticityofsuchevidenceiscontested,thenthelawprovidesvariousmethodsofauthentication.130

Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, we recommend that the procedure and the form of submitting electronic evidence is clearly defined. Electronic evidence may be allowed to be submitted in any form, provided it enables a reliable authentication that the piece of evidence is what it is claimed to be. We believe that the implementation of this Recommendation will bring clarity into proceedings conducted before the IP Court.

2.2.3.2. Recommendations regarding the power of the court to appoint an expert unilaterally under article 99 (3) CPC

This provision allows the court to decide unilaterally on the initial appointment of an expert or an expert institution,andtorequesttheirexpertopinion.Specifically,underthisprovision,thecourthastherighttochoose an expert at its discretion without any consultation with the parties to a dispute.

Whileapproachesvary,inthemajorityoftheselectedjurisdictions,suchanappointmentisconducteduponconsultation with the parties.131Conversely,eveninthejurisdictionswherethecourtmayappointanexpertuponitsownvolition,thecourtsrarelydothis.132

Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, we recommend clarifying the circumstances in which the IP Court has the unilateral power to appoint an expert. In such cases, an expert may, nevertheless, be appointed upon prior consultation with the parties. The initial selection and appointment of an expert upon the court’s own volition, without any discussion of this matter with the parties, may interfere with the adversarial nature of the proceedings as envisaged under the new CPC. Therefore, the implementation of this Recommendation will ensure that such a process will comply with the spirit of the CPC.

2.2.4. Recommendations on a preliminary injunctive relief in IP cases

2.2.4.1. Recommendations on the grounds for granting a preliminary injunctive relief under Article 136(2) CPC

Article136(2)CPCprovidesthatthecourtmayissueapreliminaryinjunctivereliefiffailuretoissuesuchaninjunctionmaysignificantlycomplicateormakeitimpossibletoenforcethecourt’sdecision.Itis,however,unclearhowtodeterminewhat‘complicate’means,whetherthecomplicationissignificant,andwhatotherelements should be demonstrated by the applicant in order to satisfy the requirement for the grant of a preliminaryrelief.Asaresult,itmaybedifficulttoobtainsuchapreliminaryrelief.

The analysis of the selected jurisdictions shows that a preliminary injunctive relief is not considered an exceptional remedytobegrantedonly insituationsofsignificantdifficultyor impossibilityof the futureenforcement of the main claim.133

129 SeePartI,Section3.1.oftheComparativeStudy(EvenintheUS,wheretherequirementofanoriginalformispresent,theFRErulesonproviding originals are rather lenient as they state that accurate duplicates are considered to be originals for admissibility purposes, summaries of voluminousmaterialsarealsoallowed,aswellasduplicatesofaharddrive).130 SeePartI,Section3.1.oftheComparativeStudy.131 SeePartsIIIandV,Section3.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,inGermanyandintheNetherlands,theappointmentofexpertsiswithinthecourt’s discretion and typically takes place after consultation with the parties).132 SeePartsIandII,Section3.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUS,thecourtsmayappointanyexpertofitsownchoosingunilaterally,however, theyveryrarelyexercisethisprerogativeastheyarereluctanttointerferewiththeadversarialsystem.Thecourts,therefore,usuallyavoidtaking theriskofinfluencingthejury,whichmaytaketheviewthatthecourt-appointedexpertisauthoritativeandimpartial.Similarly,intheUK,while thecourtmayappointanexpertonitsowninitiative,inpracticethishappensveryrarely(incivildisputesthisisusuallylimitedtointerpretersand shorthandwriters).However,judgesintheUKmaynominatetheso-called‘assessors’or,inthePatentsCourt‘scientificadvisors’,whoassistthe courtindealingwithmattersinwhichtheyhaveskillsandexperience,forexample,byhelpingthecourtunderstandthereportsoftheparties’ expertsorbyansweringthejudges’questionsontechnicalsubjects(seePartII,Section2.3oftheComparativeStudy).133 See Sections 2.4.1. of the Comparative Study.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


Thatisthecaseeveninthecommonlawcountries,wherethegrantofareliefisadiscretionalpowerofthejudge.134Whileeachjurisdictionhasitsparticularitiesastothespecificgroundsforgrantingvarioustypesofpreliminary injunctive relieves,all theanalysed jurisdictionscarefullyconsiderwhether thedetrimentthatthedefendantwillsufferbecauseofthegrantofthemeasureisoffset,giventhetimecontingencies,bytheurgentinterestsoftheplaintiff.Specifically,despitevariousapproachestoevaluatingthegroundsforgrantingapreliminaryinjunctiverelief,theanalysisrevealsthatintheselectedjurisdictions,thecourts,ingeneral,tendtorelyonthefollowingthreefactorswhenassessingwhethertograntarelief:1)balanceofinterestsoftheparties(i.e.balanceofconvenience),including,forexample,adequacyofdamages;135 2) urgencyofthethreattotheclaimantsinterests;and3)prima facie strength of the plaintiff’s factual and legal assertions (i.e. likelihood of success).136 The application of these grounds reflects the main aim of such preliminarymeasures,whichistoavoidtheriskofinjuringtheinterestsoftheplaintiffwhilealsoprotectingthe interests of the defendant by ensuring that the grant of a preliminary measure is just.

These criteria are intended to cover all possible factors that might be relevant to deciding on the grant of an injunction.Atthesametime,itisimportanttonotethattheydonotamounttoadecisiononthesubstanceoftheclaimsbeforethefinaljudgment.Inparticular,thelikelihoodofsuccessaimsatevaluatingwhethertheapparentstrengthoftheargumentsoftheclaimantissufficienttojustifytheriskofunjustifiedlossforthedefendant should the measure granted is proved unfounded. A preliminary injunction is not treated as res judicata,itmaybesetasideinthemainjudgment,andthedefendanthastherighttoclaimacompensationforanylossessuffered.Moreover,thethreecriteriadiscussedabovemaybefurtherqualifiedtomakethegrantofaninjunctioneithereasierormoredifficult,dependingonthepolicypreferencesofthelegislator.Forinstance,thelikelihoodofsuccessmaybequalifiedas‘substantial’or,tothecontrary,thepartiesmayonly be obliged to prove that success is more likely than not.137Theurgencyelement,ontheotherhand,mayrefer to direct or indirect risk to the claimant’s interests.138Theurgencyelementmaybealsodefinedwithreferencetothe‘frustration’ofor‘significantdifficulties’intheenforcementoftheclaim,ortothenecessityofpreventingthe‘impendingforce’.139Alternatively,thechoicemaybelefttothejudiciary,whichmayadoptvaryingcriteriadependingonthetypeofadispute,takingintoaccounttheparticularityofacertaintypeofIPrightorindustry.140

While in many cases preliminary injunctive measures may be the only viable way to protect the interests of the IP rightholder, the current provision of the CPC makes it very difficult to obtain such a relief. Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, we therefore recommend amending the CPC provision related to the grounds for granting a preliminary injunctive relief in IP disputes.

1) We recommend that Article 136(2) CPC may be revised by explicitly including in a non-exhaustive manner the three factors above that may be considered by the IP Court when granting a preliminary injunctive relief, i.e. balance of convenience, urgency of the threat and likelihood of success. These factors may be further qualified to make the grant of an injunction either easier or more difficult, depending on the policy considerations by means of a direct stipulation in the CPC or by case law.

We believe that the implementation of this Recommendation will improve the effectiveness of IP adjudication by the IP Court.

134 See Sections 2.4.1. of the Comparative Study (Note that in the US, preliminary injunctions are often described as ‘extraordinary remedies’ (see e.g., Morton Denlow, ‘The Motion for a Preliminary Injunction: Time for a Uniform Federal Standard’ (2003) 22 REV. LITIG. 495, and case law cited therein). However, none of the four grounds for the grant refers to ‘significant difficulties’ or ‘impossibility’ and the circuit courts apply the grounds with varied rigidity).135 SeePartII,Section2.4.1.oftheComparativeStudy.IntheUK,balanceofconvenienceandadequacyofdamagesarebothpartoftheequitable test for the grant of interim injunctions. Balance of convenience comprises an analysis of particular factual circumstances in which the injunction is sought and the subsequent assessment of the equity considerations underlying these circumstances. In order to define the adequacy of damages criterion the court determines what type of loss that may occur and whether it could be recovered at the time the main judgment is rendered.Whereastreatedseparately intheUK,bothcriteria involveafactualanalysisaimedatassessingwhetherthegrantofaninjunction wouldbefairinthelightoftheinterestoftheparties.Asaresult,itmaybereasonabletousethe‘adequacyofdamages’asanelementofthe balance of convenience criterion. 136 See Sections 2.4.1 of the Comparative Study.137 SeePart I,Section2.4.1.of theComparativeStudy (In theUS, theapplicantdoesnothave todemonstrate ‘substantial likelihoodofsuccess onthemerits,butratherthelowerstandardofdemonstratingthatthesuccessismorelikelythannot’).138 SeePartIII,Section2.4.1.oftheComparativeStudy(Thedistinctionbetween‘direct’and‘indirect’riskispresentinGermanlaw.Thus,inGermany aregulatoryinjunctionmaybegrantedalsoincasesofindirect,butconcrete,threatofinfringement).139 These terms where applied by the German legislator in relation to two types of preliminary injunctions (see Part III, Section 2.4.1 of the Comparative Study). 140 SeePartII,Section2.4.1oftheComparativeStudy(IntheUK,thegrantofaninteriminjunctioninapatentdisputeismorelikelyifthepatentwas granted in the pharmaceutical or agrochemical industry; in relation to other types of industries the courts usually assume the adequacy of damagesandrefusethegrantofapreliminaryrelief.Thiscorrelationispatent-specificanddoesnotapplytoothertypesofIPrights.)

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.2.4.2. Recommendations regarding potential uncertainty in relation to the procedure for applying for preliminary injunctions before submitting a lawsuit

Article20(2)CPCincludesalistofcasesthatfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheIPCourt.ThesubsequentArticles27-30CPCestablishterritorial jurisdictionofthecourts(i.e.whichcourttochoosewhenfilingalawsuit),including general territorial jurisdiction,whichisdeterminedbasedonthedefendant’splaceofdomicile,orexclusive (territorial) jurisdictioninrelationtothespecifictypesofcases.Forexample,acorporatedisputebetween shareholders of a company will be considered under the rules of exclusive (territorial) jurisdiction bythecourtwherethecompanyisdomiciled(andnotbythecourtofthedefendant’sdomicile,i.e.territorialjurisdiction).141Thereis,however,nomentioningoftheIPCourtanditsexclusivejurisdictiontohearIPcasesinthispartoftheCPC.142ThismaycreatesomeconfusionastothechoiceofthecourtwhenresolvinganIPdispute.Forexample,itcouldbeunderstoodthatallcases,includingIPcases,shouldbereferredtothecourtbasedonterritorialorexclusivejurisdiction,butnottotheIPCourt.AlthoughsuchanexclusivejurisdictionseemstobeimpliedfromArticle20(2)CPC,thisomissionmay,nevertheless,affectotherproceduralactionsofthepartiestoanIPdispute,suchasfilingarequestforapreliminaryinjunctiverelief.

Inparticular,thepartycanrequestthecourttoissueapreliminaryinjunctionbeforeorafterthefilingofalawsuitwiththecourt.TheCPCestablishesspecificrulesconcerningthefilingofarequestforapreliminaryinjunction before submitting the lawsuit.143Itstatesthatsucharequestshouldbefiledinaccordancewiththerulesof territorial jurisdictionestablished in theCPCdiscussedabove.This implies that therequestforpreliminary injunctionsshouldbesubmitted to thecourtwhere thedefendant’splaceofdomicile is,or toanother courtunderexclusive (territorial) jurisdiction insomespecific (non-IP) cases.Concerninganynon-IPcases,thiswouldmeanthatapreliminaryinjunctionwillbeissuedbythesamecourt,whichwillconsiderthecase,asthelawsuitmustbesubmittedwithintendaysoftherequestforapreliminaryinjunctionbeingfiledtothesamecourt.However,concerningIPcases,thismaymeanthat,whilethelawsuitmustbesubmitted to the IPCourt, the request forapreliminary injunctionprior to thesubmissionofalawsuit must be submitted to another court based on the rules of territorial jurisdiction.

Intheselected jurisdictions, theapproachesastowhichcourtmayconsiderarequestforapreliminaryinjunctive relief filed before the commencement of the main proceedings vary. In the majority of theanalysedjurisdictions,sucharequestmustbefiledwiththecourtthathasjurisdictiontoconsiderthemainproceedings.144Ontheotherhand,someoftheanalysedjurisdictionsallowfortherequestsforapreliminaryinjunctiverelieftobefiledwithadifferentcourttothatwhichhasjurisdictiontoconsiderthemainlawsuit.Such a jurisdiction to decide on a preliminary injunctive relief is established either on the basis of general rules of jurisdiction145 or is limited to certain types of relieves.146Therefore, in theanalysed jurisdictions,there is no confusion as to which court has jurisdiction to consider such a request.

Considering the aims of the judicial reform in Ukraine, and that the new IP Court is designed to improve the quality and uniformity of IP jurisprudence, the current procedure that potentially allows granting a preliminary injunctive relief by any district court in accordance with territorial jurisdiction may have a negative effect both on the outcome of a particular case as well as on the rationale for the creation of the new IP Court in general. Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, we therefore recommend the following:

1) We recommend that Articles 27-30 CPC may be clarified by specifying that all requests for a preliminary injunctive relief filed before or after filing the main lawsuit must be submitted to the IP Court.

We believe that the implementation of these Recommendations will improve the effectiveness of IP adjudication by the IP Court.

141 ExclusivejurisdictionofthecommercialcourtsunderArticle30(6)CPC.142 Article27CPC.143 Article138CPC.144 SeePartI,IIandIV,Section2.4.2oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUS,iftherequestisappliedforbeforethemainlawsuitisfiled,itmustbe broughttothecourtthatiscompetenttodealwiththemainlawsuit.SimilarapproachistakenintheUKandFrance).145 See Part V, Section 2.4.2. of the Comparative Study (e.g. in theNetherlands, preliminarymeasures requested before commencing themain proceedingsmaybefiledeitherwiththecourtwherethedefendanthasitsdomicileorplaceofbusinessorwiththecourtwheretherequested measurewilltakeeffect.Inaddition,theseizureofgoodsandevidentiarymeasuresmaybegrantedbythecourtwithinterritorialjurisdictionof which the goods and evidence are located).146 SeePartIII,Section2.4.2.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.inGermany,inprinciple,apreliminaryinjunctivereliefrequestedbeforethecommencement ofthemainproceedingsmustbesubmittedtothecourtinwhichthemainproceedingswilltakeplace.Inexceptionalcircumstances,i.e.wherea specifictypeofapreliminaryinjunctivereliefintheformofinjunctionsandsolelyinurgentcases,alocalcourtinthedistrictofwhichtheobject of the litigation is located may issue an injunction).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.2.4.3. Recommendations on cross-undertaking under Articles 139-141 CPC

Typically, incommercial litigationthecourtrequiresthepartyapplyingforapreliminary injunctiverelief toprovidetheothersidewitha‘cross-undertakingindamages’,i.e.anundertakingtocompensatetheotherpartyfor any pecuniary harm that the injunction may cause should the court decide at a later date that the injunction should not have been granted or have been discharged.147 Thus, Article 139(1)(6) CPC requires thatwhenapplyingforapreliminaryinjunctiverelief,theplaintiffmustalsoprovidesuggestionsastocross-undertaking.Failure to provide such suggestions on cross-undertaking may result in a refusal to consider an application for such a relief.148Similarly,failuretoprovidecross-undertakingwithinthetermsestablishedbythecourtmayresult in the cancellation of a preliminary injunctive relief imposed earlier.149Whileprovidingsafeguardsforthedefendantagainstanydamagescausedbyaninjunctionservesadesirableobjective,thisprovisionmayhaveanadverseeffectonspecificcategoriesofplaintiffsinIPdisputes-naturalpersons,suchasauthorsorinventors,whomaynotbeabletoofferacross-undertakingtotheextentnecessarytocompensateforapotentiallossbythedefendant,e.g.ifthedefendantisamultinationalcorporation.Thismayhaveachillingeffectonsuchplaintiffs,whichinturncouldputtheeffectiveenforcementofafinaldecisionatrisk.

Ingeneral, theapproachtograntingcross-undertakingissimilar intheanalysedjurisdictions. Inmostofthesejurisdictions,itisdecidedbythecourtbasedonthecircumstancesoftheparties.Moreover,whileinmostoftheselectedjurisdictionsthecourtsarenotrequiredtotakeintoaccountthefinancialcircumstancesof theplaintiffwhendecidingonacross-undertaking,150 the courts generally have wide discretion in this matter.151Furthermore,insomejurisdictions,thecourtsdotakefinancialcircumstancesofcertaincategoriesof plaintiffs into account when deciding on a cross-undertaking.152Finally,insomejurisdictions,inadditionto the provision of a financial undertaking, the courtsmay also request the provision of non-monetaryobligations by the plaintiff.153 The non-monetary obligations essentially perform a similar role to the monetary cross-undertaking,astheyallowthedefendanttobecompensatedforanylossessheorhemightsufferasaresultofagrantofapreliminaryinjunction.Atthesametime,theyprovideagreaterflexibilityincaseswheretheclaimantdoesnotpossessasufficientfinancialmeanstoprovideacross-undertaking.

Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions and Ukrainian realities, we recommend the adoption of a more flexible approach when deciding on cross-undertakings.

1) First, we recommend that the IP Court, considering the facts of the case, the purpose of cross-undertakings, and the financial circumstances of the plaintiff, may be able to grant a preliminary injunctive relief without ordering a cross-undertaking.

147 Andrew Perkins, ‘Guide To Injunctions’ (3 March 2018) <https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-events/general/guide-to-injunctions> (accessed 23 September 2020).148 Article140(7)CPC.149 Suchpracticehasalreadybeendevelopedbythecommercialcourts.Whenanapplicationforapreliminaryinjunctiondoesnotcontainaspecific cross-undertakingbytheplaintiff,courtstypicallydecidethatsuchanapplicationdoesnotmeettherequirementsofArticle139CPCandtherefore reject the application for preliminary injunctions. See e.g.Decision of theCommercial Court of Kyiv (11 June 2018) in relation to the patent infringement(Case№910/7714/17)<http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/74569832>(accessed23September2020).150 SeePartII,Section2.4.3oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.intheUK,asamatterofprinciple,financialcircumstancesoftheapplicantcannotserve as a reason for the court not to require cross-undertaking).151 SeePartI,Section2.4.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g., intheUS,cross-undertakingisnotobligatory,andthecourtsarevestedwithalarge discretionastowhetherornottoobligethepartytopostabond,aswellastotheamountofthebonditself).152 SeePartI,Section2.4.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.intheUS,thereareseveralgroupsofapplicantsinrelationtowhichthecourtsareusually hesitanttograntthebond–theseareindigenouslitigantsandcitizengroupsenforcingtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct.Thecourtsfound thatwhereanindigenouslitigantisunabletofurnishasecurityduetothefinancialcircumstances,abondshouldnotberequired).153 SeePartsII,IIIandIV,Section2.4.3.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,inGermany,theapplicantmayprovidejewelryorantiques,oranyotherform ofundertakingagreedbytheparties,suchasalienonacar.InFrance,thesecuritymayalsobeinanyform,e.g.,deliveryofmovables.Inaddition, intheUK,cross-undertakingtakestheformofacontractualrelationshipbetweenthepartiesunderwhichtherespondentwillhavetherighttosue for contractual damages if the preliminary measure granted by the court is later revoked).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2) Second, we recommend extending the list of cross-undertakings by supplementing it with, for example, the provision of non-monetary undertakings, as well as the possibility to impose an obligation on the plaintiff to perform certain actions or refrain from such a performance until the final decision.154 This solution may be used as an alternative to a monetary undertaking, or applied only in circumstances where the claimant offers sufficient evidence that their unable to provide a monetary undertaking.

We believe that the implementation of these Recommendations, considering the interests of both parties when granting cross-undertakings, will increase the effectiveness of preliminary injunctive measures. We also believe they will have a positive effect on the effective enforcement of decisions in IP disputes.

2.2.4.4. Recommendations on the revocation of preliminary injunctive reliefs under Article 145(1) CPC

Article145(1)CPCauthorisesthecourttocancelapreviouslygrantedpreliminaryinjunctivereliefonitsownvolition.Whilethisprovisionprovidesthecourtwithsuchapower,itdoesnotspecifythegroundsonwhichsuchadecisioncanbemade,leavingunlimiteddiscretiontothecourtinthismatter. Inmostoftheanalysedjurisdictions,thelawdoesnotprovidethecourtwiththepowertorevokeapreliminaryinjunctive relief upon its own initiative.155 This can be done only upon the request of the party and based on thegroundsforsucharevocationspecifiedinthelaw.156 Even in those jurisdictions where the courts have suchapower,thelawprovidesspecificgroundsbasedonwhichthegrantedreliefcanberevokedbythecourtunilaterally,thuslimitingthepowerofthecourttorevokesuchmeasures.157

We therefore recommend amending Article 145(1) CPC by indicating that the court has the power to revoke a preliminary injunctive relief upon the request of the party and based on the grounds for such a revocation specified in the law.158 Such grounds may include the following: (a) change of circumstances, especially if the grounds on which the relief was granted ceased to exist, (b) failure to commence the main proceedings, especially if the injunction was granted ex parte; (c) where the preliminary injunctive relief no longer serves its purpose or where its purpose has already been fulfilled; (d) where the relief interferes with the legitimate interests of third parties; and (e) where the conditions set out in the order granting the relief, such as the provision of security, were not fulfilled.

154 Non-monetaryobligations,suchastheimpositionofanobligationtoperformcertainactionsorrefrainfromsuchaperformanceuntilthefinal decision,canbefound inArticle137CPC,which listsmeasuresthatcanbeorderedbythecourtasapreliminary injunctiverelief.Therefore, we believe that the court should also have the power to use such measures when deciding on cross-undertakings. The analysis of the selected jurisdictions shows that non-monetary measures are also available in such proceedings.155 SeePartsI,III,IV,andV,Section2.4.4.oftheComparativeStudy(thisisthecaseintheUS,Germany,France,andtheNetherlands.Note,however, thatintheUStherevocabilityofapreliminaryinjunctivereliefbythecourtsuaspontedependsonalegalprovisiononwhichtherevocationis basedandonaparticularcircuitcourt,asthejurisprudencevariesbetweenthecircuits).156 SeePartsI,IIIandIV,Sections2.4.4.oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.intheUS,thelawestablishesspecificgroundsunderwhichthecourtmay dissolve or modify the relief upon the application of a party. These include cases where the grounds on which the relief was granted ceased to exist,wherechangesinthelawoccurred,wheretheprospectiveapplicationoftheinjunctionisnolongerequitable,andwherethecourtneedsto ensurethatanyinjunctivereliefgrantedfullyvindicatestherightsaccordedbytheunderlyingjudgment.Similarly,inGermany,thereliefcanbe revoked if there is a change of circumstances. This will be the case where the grounds on which the order was issued have been conclusively dealt with,oriftheapplicanthasfailedtofilethemainclaimwithintheperiodprescribedbythecourt.Likewise,inFrance,ameasuregrantedinter partescannotberevokedbythecourtthatgrantedit,unlesstherehavebeenachangeofcircumstances).157 SeePart II, Section, 2.4.4. of the Comparative Study (e.g. this is the approach taken in theUK,where a preliminary injunctive reliefmay be dischargedbeforethefinaldecisionisdeliveredbythecourt.However,thelawprovidesspecificgroundsforsucharevocation,includingthefact that the injunction was granted without a notice despite that the notice was required, the claimant failed to comply with the undertakings incorporatedintotheorder,therewasamaterialchangeincircumstances,therewasanunreasonableinterferencewiththerightsofinnocentthird parties,andwhenthereisaseriousdelaybytheapplicantinpursuingtheaction.Inaddition,thecourtcansuspendtheoperationofaninjunction at any time in order to ensure that the operation is just and convenient (or proportionate).)158 See Parts I, III and IV, Sections 2.4.4. of the Comparative Study (e.g. in the US, the law establishes specific grounds under which the court may dissolve or modify the relief upon the application of a party. These include cases where the grounds on which the relief was granted ceased to exist, where changes in the law occurred, where the prospective application of the injunction is no longer equitable, and where the court needs to ensure that any injunctive relief granted fully vindicates the rights accorded by the underlying judgment. Similarly, in Germany, the relief can be revoked if there is a change of circumstances - in particular,where the grounds onwhich the order was issuedhave been conclusively dealtwith, or if the applicant has failed to file themain claimwithin the period prescribedby the court. Likewise,inFrance,ameasuregrantedinter partescannotberevokedbythecourtthatgrantedit,unlessthecircumstanceshavechanged).

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


2.2.5. Recommendations on security for costs

OneofthenovelprovisionsintheCPCisthereimbursementoftheparties’legalfees.WhileinthepreviousversionsoftheCPCsuchfeeswerecappedatalevelthatwasspecificallyestablishedbythelaw(andthislevelwasfairlymarginal),thenewprovisionsoftheCPCallowfortherecoveryoflegalfees,whichcanbecalculatedonthebasisofanagreementbetweenthepartyanditsattorney-at-law.Overall,thismaybeseenasapositivedevelopmentforcommerciallitigation,aslegalfeescanbesubstantial,andthewinningpartycannowrecoverits legalcosts. Itmay,however,harmnaturalpersonswhoare IPowners. Inparticular, theCPCallowsthedefendant,incertaincircumstances,toaskthecourtforanorderrequestingtheplaintifftoprovidesecurityforcosts,whichincludethedefendant’slegalfees.159 Non-compliance with such a court order may result in the rejection of the lawsuit.160 This may allow for abuse of process by defendants in cases when a natural person owningIPrightssuesacompanyfortheinfringementofhis/herIPrights.Insuchcases,theprovisionofsecurityfor costs incurred by companies and calculated based on new rules may prove to be an insurmountable burden forsomenaturalpersonIPrightholders,orevenSMEs.ItcouldthushaveachillingeffectonnaturalpersonsandSMEsbydiscouragingthemfromreferringtheircasestotheIPCourtinthefirstplace.161

Inmostoftheanalysedjurisdictions,whilethefinancialcircumstancesoftheplaintiffaregenerallynottakenintoaccount,thegrantofsecurityforcostsisadiscretionarymatter.162Moreover,someoftheanalysedjurisdictionsexplicitlytakeintoaccountthefinancialcircumstancesofplaintiffsandmayrefrainfromorderingtheprovisionofsecurityforcostsiftheplaintiffscandemonstratethattheyareunabletoprovidesufficientsecurity.163

Based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, as well as considering the Ukrainian realities, we recommend the following.

1) We recommend that the CPC provides the IP Court with wide discretion in deciding on security for costs. Specifically, the Court may be allowed to take matters such as financial hardship into account when deciding on granting such a bond, as well as its amount. Concerning the latter, the court may be able to decide on the amount of legal fees based on an average level of legal fees on the market rather than basing its order on the specific legal fees of the defendant’s attorneys.

We believe that the implementation of these Recommendations will improve the effectiveness of IP adjudication by the IP Court.

2.2.6. RecommendationsontheCPC’ssimplifiedproceduresthat are currently unavailable for natural persons

Someof the procedures establishedby theCPCmaynot be available to natural person IP owners. Forexample,theCPCimplementsanewsimplifiedprocedureintheformofacourtorder,whichprovidesforspeedyenforcementofacontractbymeansofdebtcollectionshouldthedebtamountbeinsignificant.164

Therefore,inprinciple,thisproceduremayalsoapplytoIPlicencesorIPassignmentagreements.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS

159 Article125(4)CPC.160 Article125(6)CPC.161 TherearenostatisticsonlegalfeesinrelationtoIPdisputesinUkraine.Bywayofanexample,thefindingsofEUCommissionontheEuropean patentlitigationdemonstratethatlegalfeesmaybesubstantial.Thus,legalfeesincurredbycompaniesperlitigationinpatentcaseswereon average,€230,000percaseinasingleMemberState.LegalfeesinpatentlitigationbeforeUKcourtswereparticularlyhigh,withanaverageof €993,000perlitigation.ThesecondhighestaveragelegalfeeswereincurredinpatentlitigationintheNetherlandsandFrance(anaverageof €476,000and€449,000perlitigation).InItaly,BelgiumandSpain,legalfeesinpatentcasesrangedbetween€111,000and€124,000onaverage. Finally, legal feeswere lowest inGermanyandAustria (€76,000and€46,000). (EUCommission ‘PharmaceuticalSector InquiryFinalReport’ (8 July 2009) pages 235-236, available <http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/pharmaceuticals/inquiry/staff_working_paper_part1.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020).162 SeeParts II and III, Section2.5of theComparativeStudy (e.g., in theUK, thecourtmayorder security for costs if, having regards toall the circumstancesofthecase,itissatisfiedthatitisjusttomakesuchanorder,orwherethereisareasontobelievethattheplaintiffwillbeunable tocompensatethedefendant’scostsiforderedtodoso.However,incasethecourtorderstoprovidesecurityforcosts,ithasdiscretionregarding theamountofsuchasecurity,aswellasthemannerandtimewithinwhichthesecuritymustbegiven.InGermany,securityforcostsmayonlybe grantedagainstforeignclaimantsandthelawprovidesthelistofexceptionswheresuchanordercannotbemade.However,thecourtsgenerally donotconsiderfinancialcircumstancesoftheplaintiff).163 SeePartsIandV,Section2.5oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUS,thegroundsforgrantingsecurityforcostsvarybetweenthefederalcircuits,and thecourts,ingeneral,arevestedwithwidediscretionindecidingonthismatter.Inmostgeneralterms,ifthecourtidentifiesactualfinancialhardship onthepartoftheappellantthatwouldpreventhim/herfrompursuingtheappeal,thebondwouldnotbedemanded.Nonetheless,theevidencemust beprovidedthatwouldprovethefinancialhardshipisindeedpresent.IntheNetherlands,thelawprovidesthatsecurityforcostswillnotbegrantedin cases where such requirements would impede effective access to justice. This must be proved by the plaintiff by a detailed description of his/her financialcircumstances).164 Articles147(1)and148(1)CPC.


Forexample, ifthecounterpartytosuchanIPagreementfailstofulfil itsfinancialobligationsunderthecontract(e.g.royaltypayments),theotherpartycouldrefertothisprocedureinordertoenforcethepaymentswiftlyunderthecontract.However,theCPCspecificallystatesthatsuchmeasuresareavailableonlytolegal entities and natural persons with entrepreneur status.165 This implies that natural persons without entrepreneurial status are excluded from utilising this expeditious procedure.

In general, the law in the selected jurisdictions does not contain such exclusions and provides equalopportunityforallplaintiffs,irrespectiveoftheirlegalstatus,torefertheirdisputestoandseekremediesfromthecourtthathasjurisdictiontoconsideraspecificIPdispute.

Therefore, based on the analysis of the selected jurisdictions, we recommend amending this provision by providing the right to file an IP-related lawsuit to all interested parties, including natural persons. We believe that the implementation of this Recommendation will improve access to justice to all IP rightholders.

2.2.7. Recommendationsonthelackofcassationforinsignificantcases

AccordingtotheCPC,thegeneralgroundsforcassationtotheSupremeCourtareincorrectapplicationofsubstantive law or violation of procedural law.166TheCPC,however,containsalistofexceptions,inwhichdecisionsoflowercourtscannotbesubjecttocassation.Onesuchexception,accordingtoArticle287(3)(2)CPC,relatestocourtdecisionsin‘insignificant’caseswhichincludethosewithmonetaryclaimsthatdonotexceed 500 times the living wage.167Decisionsinsuchcasescanonlybesubjecttocassationiftheyinvolve,interalia,mattersof fundamental importance for theuniformapplicationof law, thecaseconstitutesasignificantpublicinterestorhasanexceptionalimportancefortheapplicant.Asaresult,thisprovisionmaypotentiallypreventmanydecisionsoftheAppellateChamberoftheIPCourtfrombeingchallengedintheSupremeCourt,asmanyoftheIPcasesmaybequalifiedas‘insignificant’accordingtothenewCPCandmay not meet the required threshold for cassation even where the appellant instance clearly misapplied substantive law or carried out a procedural violation that had impacted the outcome of the case.168Afterall,the complexity and significanceof an IPdispute inmany casesmaynot necessarily be reflected in itsmonetary value.

Inprinciple,theestablishmentofahighthresholdforcassation,ingeneral,isinlinewiththeapproachestaken in the majority of the analysed jurisdictions and may be even considered as more lenient.169 Therefore, most jurisdictions that introduced special procedures related to small value claims170 allow the decisions delivered by the appellate instance to be challenged in cassation if the general grounds for cassationaremet,e.g.ifthecasehassignificantimportance.171Somejurisdictions,however,havesimilargroundsforcassationasthegeneralgroundsforcassationinUkraine,withoutanyfurtherlimitations.172

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS

165 Article147(3)CPC.Anentrepreneurialstatusisaformallegalstatusthatcanbeobtainedbymeansofthestateregistrationinaccordancewiththe LawofUkraine ‘On theStateRegistrationofLegalEntities,NaturalPersons-EntrepreneursandCivilOrganisations’ (15May2003,№755-IV) <https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/755-15>(accessed23September2020).Thisspecialstatusallowsanaturalpersontoconductcommercial (business) activities without establishing a legal entity.166 Article287(2)CPC.167 Accordingtothe2020StateBudget,asof1January2020thisequals1,051,000Hryvnas(appx.35,000GBP).168 Forexample,oneoftherespondentsgaveanexamplerelatedtoacaseontherecoveryofcompensationfortheinfringementofanauthor’sproperty rightintheamountof72,000Hryvnas(appx.2,100GBP)thatwillfallwithinthiscategoryof‘insignificant’casesandwillthusnotbesubjecttocassation.169 PartsI,IIandIII,Section6oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.,intheUS,theSupremeCourtconsidersonlycasesthathavenationalsignificance,may leadtoharmonisationofconflictingdecisions in the federalcircuitcourts,and/orcouldhaveprecedentialvalue irrespectiveof themonetary valueofthelawsuit.IntheUK,thePracticeDirection3.3.3requiresthattheappealagainstthedecisionsoftheCourtofAppealmustraisean arguablepointoflawofgeneralpublicimportanceirrespectiveofthemonetaryvalueofthelawsuit.Likewise,inGermany,under§543ZPO,the appealonpointsoflawisadmissibleifthelegalmatterisoffundamentalsignificance,orthefurtherdevelopmentofthelawortheinterestsin ensuringuniformadjudicationrequireadecisiontobehandeddownbythecourthearingtheappealonpointsoflaw.Germanprocedurallaw doesnot imposeanyrequirementsconcerning thevalueof theclaim in relation toappealsonpointsof lawassuch,butnormalappealswill generallybesubjecttothethresholdofEUR600unlessthefirstinstancecourtdecidesotherwise;this,inpractice,affectsthevalueofclaimsin cassationproceedings.Aso-calledleapfrogappealissubjecttothestatutoryrequirementofEUR600;thefirstinstancecourtmaynotallowa partytofiletheleapfrogappealwhenthestatutoryrequirementisnotmet.170 SeePartsII,IIIandV,Section6oftheComparativeStudy(theseincludetheUK,GermanyandtheNetherlands).171 IntheUK,suchclaimsarebroughtintheIPECsmallclaimstrackwhenthevalueoftheclaimdoesnotexceed£10,000.Appealsagainstsuch judgmentsarefiledtothemulti-tracksectionattheIPECandarecurrentlyheardbyJudgeHacon,whoactsastheenterprisejudge.Thedecisions oftheenterprisejudge,inturn,arereviewedbytheCourtofAppealthatactsasthecourtofcassationinthiscase.InGermany,thelocalcourts exercisejurisdictionoverdisputesconcerningcopyrightandrelatedrights,inwhichthevalueofaclaimdoesnotexceedEUR5,000.Theregional courtsactbothasthefirstinstancecourtandasthecourtsofappealreviewingcertaindecisionsofthelocalcourts.Appealsagainstalldecisions oftheregionalcourtsandcertaindecisionsofthelocalcourtsmaybefiledwiththehigherregionalcourts,andthedecisionsofthelattermaythen beappealedtotheBGHthatactsasthecourtofcassation.172 SeePartsIVandV,Section6oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.FranceandtheNetherlands).


Inonejurisdiction,whichdoesnotallowforappealsagainstthedecisioninsmallvalueclaims,thelawlimitssuchappealstoaspecificamount,whichisindeed‘insignificant’comparingtoaminimumlivingwageinthat jurisdiction.173

Since one of the key objectives of the new IP Court is to develop coherent IP jurisprudence, and considering the fact that the Court will consist of the newly appointed IP judges, it may be reasonable to consider lowering the bar for cassation in IP cases. In particular, it may be reasonable to increase the role of the Supreme Court in overseeing the practice of the new IP Court by revising its application of substantive and procedural laws until the coherent IP jurisprudence is developed. It is important to emphasise that the exclusion in relation to the availability of cassation in small value claims would apply only to IP disputes. Since the new IP Court was created with one of the main objectives to develop a coherent IP jurisprudence, it is particularly important that erroneous judgements by the appellant instance, which would otherwise be allowed to stay and tilt the said jurisprudence in an undesirable manner, would be reviewed by the Supreme Court and would be rectified where necessary. This would clearly contribute to the emergence of coherent and effective IP jurisprudence. We believe that the policy preferences adopted by the Ukrainian government reinforce and support the reduction of the threshold for cassation in relation to IP disputes. The Ukrainian government has demonstrated continuous interest in the strengthening of the IP enforcement mechanisms, what is evidenced, above all, by the decision to establish the IP Court. The decision of the Ukrainian government constitutes a reflection of the established set of policy priorities, which in turn address the needs of the judicial system and the national economy. The fact that this particular field of law requires a separate judicial institution also explains why IP disputes require a particular attention from the Supreme Court, especially in the early stages of the IP Court functioning.

Therefore, we recommend amending Article 287 CPC considering the following:

1) We recommend providing the possibility to challenge the decisions of the Appellate Chamber before the Supreme Court unless the case is insignificant, i.e. the value of the claims do not exceed 2-5 minimum living wages. In such cases cassation may be allowed only if the threshold set in Article 287(3)(2) CPC is met, i.e. if the case involves, inter alia, matters of fundamental importance for the uniform application of law, the case constitutes a significant public interest or has an exceptional importance for the applicant.

We believe that the implementation of these Recommendations will improve the effectiveness of the IP adjudication and improve access to justice.

173 SeePartV,Section6oftheComparativeStudy(e.g.intheNetherlands,iftheallegedvalueofanIPinfringementclaimisbelowEUR25,000,such a case may be brought before a small claims chamber of the district courts. An appeal against a judgment of the district court is only available if the claim exceeds EUR 1,750). As of August 2019, themonthly Dutchminimumwage of 18 years old employee was EUR 767.50. Thus, the ‘insignificant’casesarethosetheamountofwhichisonlydoubleofthemonthlyminimumwage,asopposetotheUkrainianstandard,wherean ‘insignificant’casedoesnotexceed100livingwages.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


174 IIPI/USPTO,‘StudyonSpecialisedIntellectualPropertyCourts’(2012);JayP.KesanandGwendolynG.Ball,‘Judicialexperienceandtheefficiency and accuracy of patent adjudication: an empirical analysis of the case for a specialised patents trial court’ (2011) 24/2 Harvard Journal ofLaw&Technology.175 EUIPO,‘SpecialisedIPRightsJurisdictionsintheMemberStates.Acompilationofavailablestudies’(Q32017)July2018.

CONCLUSIONS TO THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

WebelievethattheestablishmentofthespecialisedIPCourtinUkrainewillleadtohighqualityjurisprudencesignalingtoindividualsandbusinessesthattheirinvestmentsinIPwillbeeffectivelyprotected.Sucharesultcanbeseenfromtheanalysisoftheselectedjurisdictions,whichconsistentlyincreasethespecialisationoftheirjudiciariesinthefieldofIP;this,inturn,positivelyinfluencethequalityofIPjurisprudenceinthesejurisdictions.OuranalysisofthematureIPjurisdictionsrevealsthataspecialisedexperienceandknowledgeofIPjudgesallowthemtodealwithIPcasesinanefficientandspeedymanneranddelivermoreaccuratejudgments.174Inaddition,theestablishmentofaspecialisedIPjudiciaryentailsthecreationofasubject-matter expertise that supports the emergence of an innovation-friendly environment.175

TheUkrainianLawReportidentifiespotentialconcernsthatmightariseinthecourseoftheestablishmentandfunctioningoftheIPCourt.TheRecommendationspresentedinthisreportaddresstheseconcerns.They are based on the detailed analysis of best practices in the selected jurisdictions discussed in the ComparativeStudythatprovidedsolidgroundsforrecommendinghowtoaddresstheproblemsidentifiedintheUkrainianLawReport.TheRecommendationsweredividedintotwoparts.ThefirstpartcomprisesRecommendationsrelatingtotheestablishmentandfunctioningof the IPCourt. In thisregard,wehaverecommended considering additional safeguards to ensure that the process of reviewing the decisions of thefirstinstancebytheappellateIPjudgescomplieswiththehigheststandardsoftheprinciplesofjudicialindependenceandimpartiality.WehavealsorecommendedtheincreaseinthenumberofIPjudges,thedevelopmentofthevideoconferencingsystem,aswellastheintroductionofadditionalregionaldivisionstosupporttheIPCourtinKyiv.TheimplementationofthesesolutionswillensuretheeffectivefunctioningoftheIPCourtandmakeitmoreaccessibletothemembersofthepublic.

ThesecondpartoftheRecommendationscoverstherulesofprocedurebeforetheIPCourt.Inthisregard,werecommendedthat,asageneralrule,theIPdisputesmaybedealtwithbyasinglejudge,ratherthanapanelofthreejudges;thelatterwouldonlybeengagedinmorecomplexcases.ThiswillfacilitateamoreeffectiveconsiderationofIPdisputesbytheIPCourtandwillallowthecourtmoreeffectivelytoaddresstherelevantcaseload.WehavealsorecommendedtoclarifytheexclusivejurisdictionoftheIPCourtbyremovingthepotentialoverlapbetweenthejurisdictionsoftheIPCourt,theadministrativecourtsandotherstateauthorities.Forexample,werecommendedextendingthejurisdictionoftheCourttocustomsandtaxdisputesinvolvinganIPelement,aswellastoappealsagainstthedecisionsontherefusaltoregisteranIPrightanddisputesrelatedtotheassessmentofthevalidityofanIP-relatedagreements.Inrelationtothelawonevidence,werecommendedthatadmissionofelectronicevidencemaybeallowedregardlessoftheformofsuchevidence.Asregardsexperts,wesuggestedtoclarifythegroundsonwhichtheCourtmaynominateanexpertunilaterally.TheRecommendationsconcerningpreliminaryinjunctivereliefs,cross-undertakingsandsecurity forcosts listsomenewapproaches forgrantingofsuchmeasures,whichwillbringclarityintoproceedingsconductedbeforetheIPCourtandbringthemclosertobestpractices identifiedintheselectedjurisdictions.Finally, inordertoaddressestheproblemofthequalityof judgments in IPcases,we recommended the reductionof themonetary threshold for cassation in small value IPdisputes.WeareoftheviewthatthesuccessfulintroductionoftheseRecommendationswillcontributetotheefficientfunctioningoftheIPCourt,aswellastheIPenforcementsystemingeneral.

THEFINAL

REC

OMMEN

DATIONS


IV. ROAD MAP ON IMPLEMENTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE IMPROVEMENTS OF UKRAINIAN LAW RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE IP COURT IN UKRAINE

ROAD

MAP

Title of the recommendation Content of the recommendation

Specific route for implementing the recommendations

Legislative amendments

Practice/other

1 On the Structureof the IP Court

Separating the two instances of the IPCourtandaccommodatingthemindifferent buildings.

Taking an appropriate decision by the State Court Administration ofUkraine.

2 On the Selection Criteria for Judges at the Appellate Chamber

Adjusting the selection criteria for the appellateIPjudgesbyestablishingmore rigorous requirements in line with the general selection criteria set for appellate judges.

Amendments to Art. 33 of the Law on the Judicial System

3 On the Specific Selection Criteria for IP Judges

1.UniformselectioncriteriaforallcandidatesforthepositionofanIPjudge,requiringthepossessionofsubstantial knowledge and experience inthefieldofIP.


2. Reserving the possibility of appointingjudgesandlawyers,who,whilemaynothaveanextensiveIPexperience,neverthelessarehighlyqualified(e.g.judgeswithmorethan15 years of judicial experience and lawyers with more than 20 years of experience in litigation).


3. Establishing the institute of ‘scientificadvisors’,whomaybeappointedbytheIPjudgestoassistthem in understanding technical issues

Amendments to Art. 33 of the Law on the Judicial System and Art.32CPC

4. Reserving a certain number of posts forIPjudgeswitharelevanttechnicalorscientificbackground.

Amendments to Art. 33 of the Law on the Judicial System and Art.32CPC


ROAD

MAP

4 On the Location of the IP Court

1. Establishing the obligation of the IPCourttoconductcourthearingsvia videoconferences if a party has demonstratedsufficientgrounds.

Amendments to Art. 197 CPC

2.Ifthetrialviavideoconferencingwouldnotbepractical(e.g.,becauseof the number of the parties or amount of evidence) and if the case has a clear regionalconnection,werecommendthat the hearings may be conducted in the region in question. For that purpose,theIPCourtcoulduseabuilding of the local civil or commercial courts.

Amendments to Art. 31 of the Law on the Judicial System,Art.197CPC

3.IncaseofasignificantincreaseofthenumberofIPlitigations–permanent regional divisions of the IPCourtmaybeestablishedinmajorUkrainiancities.videoconferencingwouldnotbepractical(e.g.,becauseof the number of the parties or amount of evidence) and if the case has a clear regionalconnection,werecommendthat the hearings may be conducted in theregioninquestion.Forthatpurpose,theIPCourtcoulduseabuildingofthelocal civil or commercial courts.


Taking an appropriate decision by the State Court Administration ofUkraine

5 On the Numberof Judges

1.Increasingthenumberofjudgesbyadding at least two more panels for the firstinstanceoftheIPCourtandonemore panel for the Appellate Chamber.

Taking an appropriate decision by the State Court Administration ofUkraine.

2. Allowing a single judge to consider certainmatters,ratherthanapanelofthree.





Practice/other


ROAD

MAP

6 On the Collegial Consideration of IP Cases in the IP Court

1.IPdisputesmaybeconsideredbyasinglejudgeatfirstinstanceasadefaultoption.Incertaincases,forexample,duetothecomplexityofthecase,thecasemaybereferredtoapanel of three judges.


1.1.DevelopingguidancethatwouldassistindefiningthelevelofcomplexityofanIPdispute.

2. The party may have the right to request the judge allocated to hear the dispute to transfer the case to a three-judge panel before or during the preparatory proceedings.


3.Definingalistofproceduralmattersthat can be resolved by a single judge in the circumstances where the case was allocated to a panel of three judges.


7 On the Jurisdiction of the IP Court

Regarding the Potential Overlap between the Jurisdictions of the IP Court and the Administrative Courts

1. Appeals against the decisions on the refusaltoregisteranIPrightmayfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheIPCourt.


2.TheIPCourtmaybecompetentinrelation to tax and customs disputes thatinvolveanIPelement.However,thejurisdictionoftheIPCourtwouldonlycomprisedisputeswhereIPspecialisation is necessary to resolve the dispute.


On the Potential Overlap between the Jurisdictions of the IP Court and other State Authorities

1. The recognition of a trade mark as well-known in cases where there is a dispute may fall within the exclusive jurisdictionoftheIPCourt.


2. Cases where there is no dispute on the recognition of a trade mark as well-known may remain within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Chamber oftheMinistryofEconomic,TradeandAgriculturalDevelopmentofUkraine(the Ministry).





Practice/other


ROAD

MAP

9 On Preliminary Injunctive Relief in IP Cases

On the Grounds for granting a preliminary injunctive relief under Article 136(2) CPC

ExplicitlyincludingtotheCPCinanon-exhaustive manner the three factors thatmaybeconsideredbytheIPCourtwhen granting a preliminary injunctive relief,i.e.balanceofconvenience,urgency of the threat and the likelihood of success.

Amendments to Article 136(2)CPC

7 3. Appeals against the decisions of the MinistrymayfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheIPCourt.


On the Disputes Concerning Authors’ Rights under Article 20(2)(4) CPC

Disputesrelatedtoallrelevantcopyright holders should fall within the jurisdictionoftheIPCourt.


On the Disputes Concerning Recognition of Agreements as Invalid

DisputesconcerningrecognitionofIP-relatedagreementsasinvalidaswellasrecognitioninvalidIP-relatedcontracts as valid may be included to thejurisdictionoftheIPCourt.


8 On Evidence in IP Cases

On evidence in an electronic form under Article 96(2) CPC

Electronic evidence may be allowed tobesubmittedinanyform,providedit enables a reliable authentication that the piece of evidence is what it is claimed to be.


The Supreme Court’s legal position in this regard is also possible (in its decision on a relevant case)

On the Power of the Court to Appoint an Expert Unilaterally Under Article 99 (3) CPC

Clarifying the circumstances in which theIPCourthastheunilateralpowertoappoint an expert.





Practice/other


ROAD

MAP




Practice/other

9 On Potential uncertainty in relation to the procedure for applying for preliminary injunctions before submitting a lawsuit

Specifying that all requests for a preliminaryinjunctiverelieffiledbeforeorafterfilingthemainlawsuitshouldbesubmittedtotheIPCourt.

Amendments to Article 138 CPC

On Cross-undertaking under Articles 139-141 CPC

TheIPCourt,consideringthefactsofthecase,thepurposeofcross-undertakings,andthefinancialcircumstancesoftheplaintiff,maybeable to grant a preliminary injunctive relief without ordering a cross-undertaking.


The list of cross-undertakings may be extended by supplementing it with the provision of non-monetary undertakings,aswellasthepossibilityto impose an obligation on the plaintiff to perform certain actions or refrain fromsuchaperformanceuntilthefinaldecision.

On the Revocation of Preliminary Injunctive Relieves under Article 145(1) CPC

TheIPCourtmayhavethepowerto revoke a preliminary injunctive relief upon the request of the party and based on the grounds for such a revocationspecifiedinthelaw.


10 On Security for Costs

1.TheIPCourtmaybeallowedtotakematterssuchasfinancialhardshipintoaccount when deciding on granting suchabond,aswellasitsamount.


2.TheIPCourtmaybeabletodecideon the amount of legal fees based on an average level of legal fees on the market rather than basing its orderonthespecificlegalfeesofthedefendant’s attorneys.


11 On Procedures that are currently unavailable for natural persons

ProvidingtherighttofileanIP-relatedlawsuit in the proceedings in the form ofacourtordertoallinterestedparties,including natural persons without entrepreneurial status.



ROAD

MAP




Practice/other

12 On the Lack of Cassation for Insignificant Cases

Providingthepossibilitytochallengethe decisions of the Appellate Chamber before the Supreme Court unless the caseisinsignificant,i.e.thevalueofthe claims do not exceed 2-5 minimum livingwages.Insuchcasescassationmay be allowed only if the threshold setinArticle287(3)(2)CPCismet,i.e.ifthecaseinvolves,interalia,mattersof fundamental importance for the uniformapplicationoflaw,thecaseconstitutesasignificantpublicinterestor has an exceptional importance for the applicant.



Outline

• TheprogrammewillbeopentocurrentIPjudges,candidatesfortheHighIntellectualPropertyCourtand MembersoftheIPAppealChamberattheMinistryforEconomicDevelopment,TradeandAgriculture;

• Partners for theprogramme include theSupremeCourtand theMinistry forEconomicDevelopment, TradeandAgriculture;

• TheprogrammewillbedeliveredbyleadinginternationalexpertsinIPlitigation,includingjudges, practitionersandacademics;

• Thecontentofthetrainingisacombinationoflaw,procedureandpractice;

• Theprogrammewillbestreamedonlineoverathree-weekperiodutilisingaclosedYouTubechanneland Zoomwithsimultaneousinterpretationto/fromUkrainian;

• ParticipantswillberequiredtopassaseriesofonlinemultiplechoicetestsinordertoreceiveaGraduation Certificate;

• Participantswillbeinvitedtoregisterviaemailandwillbeprovidedwithsecurelogindetailstoaccess the programme website.

Daily Schedule (Kyiv time, Ukraine, UTC+3)

ONLINETR

AININGPRO

GRA

MME

10:00-11:00 Session 1 (1 h)

11:00-11:15 Q&A (15 min)

11:15-11:40 Break (25 min)

11:40-12:40 Session 2 (1 h)

12:40-12:55 Q&A (15 min)

12:55-14:30 Lunch (1 h 35min)

14:30-15:30 Session 3 (1 h)

15:30-15:45 Q&A (15 min)

15:45-16:10 Break (25min)

16:10-17:10 Session 4 (1 h)

17:10-17:30 Q&A (15 min)


ONLINETR

AININGPRO

GRA

MME

WEEK 1

Day 1: Opening remarks

Monday,6July

10:00-10:10 MelindaSimmons,UKAmbassadortoUkraine

10:10-10:20 DrRuslanStefanchuk,DeputySpeakeroftheRada

10:20-10:30 LordNeuberger,formerPresidentoftheSupremeCourtintheUK

Day 1: Part I - Substantive issues of EU IP Law

Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights

10:30-11:00 InternationalandEuropeanIPlegalframework.TheroleofIPinsupportingGrowthandDevelopmentinTech-intensive industry.

DrNoamShemtov,CCLS,QueenMaryUniversityofLondon,UK

11:00-11:15 Q&A

11:15-11:40 Break

11:40-12:40 UkraineNationalStrategyforIntellectualProperty;PurposeandStructure

MrRonaldMarchant,FormerHeadoftheUKIPO

12:40-12:55 Q&A

12:55-14:30 Lunch

14:30-15:30 CreativeindustriesandEconomic,Social and Cultural development–AperspectivefromWIPO

MrDimiterGantchev,WIPO,DeputyHeadofthecreativeIndustriesdepartment,Switzerland

15:30-15:45 Q&A

15:45-16:10 Break

16:10-17:10 TheRoleofIntellectualPropertyinGeneratingGrowthintheDigitalCreative Economy

MrDimiterGantchev,WIPO,DeputyHeadofthecreativeIndustriesdepartment,Switzerland

17:10-17:30 Q&A

Copyright (Day 1)

Tuesday,7July

10:00-11:00 Internationalcontext:InternationalandEUCopyrightlegalframework

DrMakeenFMakeenLLB(Cairo),SeniorLectureratSOAS,UniversityofLondon,LLM,PhD(London),AdvocateCourtofAppeal Egypt

11:00-11:15 Q&A

11:15-11:40 Break


ONLINETR

AININGPRO

GRA

MME

11:40-12:40 SubjectmatterofCopyright:ComparativeperspectivefromFrance,Netherlands,UKandEU


12:40-12:55 Q&A

12:55-14:30 Lunch

14:30-15:30 Theconceptoforiginality:Copyrightvdroit d’auteurandEUlaw


15:30-15:45 Q&A

15:45-16:10 Break

16:10-17:10 Authorship/Ownership:Copyrightv.droit d’auteur


17:10-17:30 Q&A

Copyright (Day 2)

Wednesday,8July

10:00-11:00 Scope of protection and exploitation JudgeEmanuelaGermanoCortese,PresidentoftheSpecialisedIPChamber,AppealCourtofTurin,Italy

11:00-11:15 Q&A

11:15-11:40 Break

11:40-12:40 Exceptions,limitationsandorphanworks

JudgeEmanuelaGermanoCortese,PresidentoftheSpecialisedIPChamber,AppealCourtofTurin,Italy

12:40-12:55 Q&A

12:55-14:30 Lunch

14:30-15:30 The nexus between Copyright and other IPrights


15:30-15:45 Q&A

15:45-16:10 Break

16:10-17:10 The nexus between Copyright and other IPrights


17:10-17:30 Q&A


ONLINETR

AININGPRO

GRA

MME

Trade Marks (Day 1)

Thursday,9July

10:00-11:00 •IntroductiontotheEUTMIntroductiontotheEUTM•Subjectmatter:differenttypesoftrademarks that can constitute a trade mark

MrStefanMartin,MemberoftheBoardsofAppeal,EUIPO,Spain

11:00-11:15 Q&A

11:15-11:40 Break

11:40-12:40 Distinctivecharacter MrStefanMartin,MemberoftheBoardsofAppeal,EUIPO,Spain

12:40-12:55 Q&A

12:55-14:30 Lunch

14:30-15:30 Descriptiveandgenerictrademarksincluding the issue of acquired distinctiveness


15:30-15:45 Q&A

15:45-16:10 Break

16:10-17:10 • The rejection of functional Trade marks• Trademarks,publicorderandmorality• The rejection of trade marks infringingarticle6teroftheParisConvention:flags,emblemsect…


17:10-17:30 Q&A

Trade Marks (Day 2)

Friday,9July

10:00-11:00 Conflict between Trade marks GeographicalIndications,Designationsof Origin and Traditional Speciality Guaranteed(TSG)


11:00-11:15 Q&A

11:15-11:40 Break


ONLINETR

AININGPRO

GRA

MME

11:40-12:40 • Revocation and invalidity proceedings• The trade mark is invalid• The trade mark has not been “genuinely“used• Thetrademarkhasbeenfiledin bad faith• The trade mark conflicts with earlier trade marks• The trade mark conflicts with personality rights (name and likeness) • Conflict with copyright • ConflictwithotherIPrights


12:40-12:55 Q&A

12:55-14:30 Lunch

14:30-15:30 • Scopeofprotection:thescopeofthemonopoly• Exceptionsandlimitations:freedomofreligion,freedomofexpression,the right to parody


15:30-15:45 Q&A

15:45-16:10 Break

16:10-17:10 • Enforcement of trade mark rights inthecontextofonlineinfringement:intermediaries liability and blocking orders• Preservingandobtainingevidence


17:10-17:30 Q&A

WEEK 2

Day1 UnfairCompetition(Germanjurisdiction)

DrAlexanderVonMuhlendahl,ProfessorDriur.JD,LLM,Attorney-at-LawatBardehlePagenberg,Germany

Monday14September

• Background,historicalcontext• HistoryofGermanunfaircompetitionlegislation• TheEuropeanUnioncontext• ThecurrentlegalsituationinGermany• ThestructureoftheUWG• Application in practice

Day2 TradeSecrets(EU) MrJohnHull,TeachingFellowinIntellectualPropertyinBusinessat the Centre for Commercial Law Studies,QueenMaryUniversityofLondon,SolicitoroftheSupremeCourt(England),UK


ONLINETR

AININGPRO

GRA

MME

Tuesday 15 September

• Fundamentals of trade secrets and thenewEUtradesecretsandthenewEUtradesecretsregime• HowcourtsanalysetradesecretscasesintheUK• The main threat to any business’s secrets-its employees• Tradesecretlitigation,obtainingevidence,courtprocedures,remedies(based on English law and procedure)

Day3 DesignsRegisteredandUnregistered(EU)

DrDavidMusker,ProfessorofInternationalDesignLawattheCentreforCommercialLawStudiesatQueenMaryUniversityofLondon,CharteredPatentAttorney,EuropeanPatentAttorney,PatentAttorneyLitigator,EuropeanTradeMarkandDesignAttorney,UK

Wednesday16 • Subject matter• Requirements for protection• Scope,Infringement,UnregisteredDesignsOwnership• Authorship,Ownership,Invalidity

Days4-5 Patents MrGwilymRoberts,ChairmanKilburn&Strode,IPlitigator,UK

Thursday-Friday,17-18September

• Subjectmatter,validityandentitlement• PatentProtection,EntitlementandExploitation

WEEK 3

Part II - Procedural issues in different jurisdictions andPlant varieties protection

Day1-2 TheGermanperspective DrKlausBacher,Presidingjudge,X.CivilSenate(PatentLaw),GermanFederalCourtofJustice,Germany

Monday21September–Tuesday 22 September

• Case management• Permanentandinteriminjunctions• Cross-undertaking in damages• Security for costs• Evidence• Experts• Pre-actionevidencegathering

Day3 PlantVarieties(EU) DrGrahamDutfield,ProfessorofInternationalGovernanceattheSchoolofLaw,UniversityofLeeds,UK


ONLINETR

AININGPRO

GRA

MME

Wednesday23September

• Introductiontoinnovationinplantbreeding:classicalbreedingandbiotechnology • Intellectualpropertyrightsinplantimprovement:theUPOVsystem,and the interaction of plant variety protectionwith(a)patentlaw,and(b)seed regulation • Judicial issues surrounding validity and enforcement of rights in plant intellectual property

Day4 TheUSPerspective HonorableKathleenM.O’Malley,USCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit,US

Thursday 24 September

• IPprotectionintheUnitedStates:HistoryandStructure• IPRemediesintheUnitedStates:Equitable Relief• IPRemediesintheUnitedStates:Damages• TheUseofExpertsinU.S.IPlitigation

Day5 TheUKPerspective Rt.Hon.LordJusticeArnold,CourtofAppealofEngland&Wales,UK

Friday 25 September

• Interiminjunctions• Cross - undertaking in damages• Security for costs• Expert evidence• Remedies


TABL

E O

F CO

NTE

NTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

AIM OF THE COMPARATIVE STUDY

PART I – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – THE US

I. Judicial system and judges

1.1. Structure of the judicial system and the IP court

1.2. Criteria for selection of judges

1.3. Location of the IP court and number of judges

II. Rules of procedure

2.1. Composition of the court in IP cases

2.2. Jurisdiction in IP cases

2.3. Evidence in IP cases

2.3.1. Evidence in electronic form 2.3.2. Experts 2.3.3. Powerofthecourttoappointanexpertunilaterally

2.4. Preliminary injunctive relief in IP cases

2.4.1. Groundsforgrantingpreliminaryinjunctiverelief 2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuit 2.4.3. Cross-undertaking 2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiative

2.5. Security for costs

2.6. Cassation in small value claims

PART II – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – UK


1.1. Structure of the judicial system and the IP courts


1.3. Location of the IP Court and number of judges

6

7

7

10

23

7

10

23

8

12

24

9

15

18

26

20

17

2120

18

22

22

23

19

16








2.4.1.Groundsforgrantingpreliminaryinjunctiverelief 2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuit 2.4.3. Cross-undertaking 2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiative 2.5. Security for costs 2.6. Cassation in small value claims

PART III – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – GERMANY




1.3. Location of the IP court and number of IP judges



2.2. Jurisdiction over IP cases


2.3.1.Powerofthecourttoappointanexpertunilaterally 2.3.2. Experts 2.3.3.Powerofthecourttoappointanexpertunilaterally

TABL

E O

F CO

NTE

NTS

40

40

44

27

40

45

27

42

46

28

38

43

48

31

39

34

49

33

37

50

34

37

48

31

35

38


TABL

E O

F CO

NTE

NTS 2.4. Preliminary injunctive relief in IP cases

2.4.1.Groundsforgrantingpreliminaryinjunctiverelief 2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuit 2.4.3. Cross-undertaking 2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiative



PART IV – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – FRANCE




1.3. Location of the IP Court and number of judges





2.3.1. Evidence in electronic form 2.3.2. Experts 2.3.3.Powerofthecourttoappointanexpertunilaterally


2.4.1.Groundsforgrantingpreliminaryinjunctiverelief 2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuit 2.4.3. Cross-undertaking 2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiative



50

53

5554

55

55

51

56

56

59

56

60

58

61

59

64

67

71

66

7271

67

72

72

68

64


PART V – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – THE NETHERLANDS











2.4.1. Groundsforgrantingpreliminaryinjunctiverelief 2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuit 2.4.3. Cross-undertaking 2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiative


2.6. Cassation in small value claimsTA

BLE

OF

CON

TEN

TS73

73

75

73

75

74

76

74

77

79

78

8181

79

82

82

83

80

77


AIM OF THE COMPARATIVE STUDY

InouranalysisoftheUkrainianlawontheestablishmentoftheIPCourtandtheprocedurallawthatwillbeapplied by this Court (the Ukrainian Law Report)wehaveidentifiedcertainissuesthatmayimpingeontheeffectivefunctioningofthenewlyestablishedIPCourt.

The aim of the Comparative StudyistoaddresstheissuesidentifiedintheUkrainianLawReportbyprovidingadetailedanalysisofthebestpracticesfromtheleadingIPjurisdictions:UnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,Germany,FranceandtheNetherlands.Inparticular,thestudyoftheselectedjurisdictionsisdividedintotwogroupsinaccordancewiththemethodologyadoptedintheUkrainianLawReport.ThefirstgrouprelatestotheorganisationofIPcourtsinthesejurisdictions,comprisingissuessuchasthestructureofthecourt,qualificationsandthenumberofjudges.Thesecondgroupcoversproceduralmatters,suchascompositionofthecourt,jurisdiction,admissibilityofevidence,andpreliminaryinjunctivereliefs.

TheconclusionsoftheanalysisofbestpracticesintheleadingIPjurisdictionsareusedasguidelinesforpreparing the Recommendations,whichareaimedtoimprovetheUkrainianlegalframeworkrelatedtotheestablishmentandoperationofthenewIPCourt.TheultimatepurposeoftheComparativeStudyisthustoprovidethenecessaryexpertisetomaximisethebenefitsofthespecialisedIPCourtinUkraine.

AIMOFTH

ECO

MPA

RATIVE

STU

DY


PART I – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – THE US



TheUS judicialsystemhasadualcourtmodel,withcourtsatboththefederalandstate levels,andtheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates(the‘SupremeCourt’)atthetop.Thesetwosystemsemploytwodifferentsetsofapplicablerules,i.e.thestatecourtsystemisgovernedbystatecivilprocedurerulesadoptedinaspecificstate,whilethefederalcourtsystemisgovernedbyfederallaws.DependingonthespecificIPissueatstakeand,inparticular,whatpieceoflegislationitisgovernedby–stateorfederalrules–acasecanbeheardineitherthestateorfederalcourtsystem.ItisalsopossiblethatbothfederalandstatecourtswouldhavejurisdictionoveranIPissue,leadingtoaconcurrentjurisdiction.

The state courts have general jurisdiction over disputes that do not fall within the jurisdiction of federal courts.1Thefederalcourtsystemhasspeciallimitedjurisdiction,whichcoversissuesrelatedtoa‘federalquestion’(usually,wherethedisputeinvolvesprovisionsoffederallaw)and‘diversityofcitizenship’(disputesbetween two parties from different states).

The federal court system operates on three levels: district courts, appellate courts (also called ‘circuitcourts’)andtheSupremeCourt.Thedistrictcourtsarethefirstinstanceortrialcourts.2Whilethejudgesinthedistrictcourtsaregeneralists,someofthemcandevelopacertainlevelofexpertiseinIPdisputes,as they may hear such cases fairly regularly.3 The circuit courts are the second instance courts. There are currently12regionalcircuitcourtsandtheCourtofAppealfortheFederalCircuit(the‘CAFC’).ThelatterhasexclusivejurisdictionovercertaintypesofIPcasesthatcoverstheentireterritoryoftheUS.The12circuitcourtsareorganisedgeographically,i.e.eachcircuitcourthearsalltypesofcasesonappealfromthedistrictcourts within its circuit.4Decisionsbythecircuitcourtsarebindingonlyuponaparticularcircuit,whichmaysometimes lead to conflicting decisions delivered by the different circuit courts on the same matter (the so-called‘circuitsplit’).5TheCAFC,whichwasestablishedin1982bytheFederalCourtsImprovementActof1982,6representsanexceptiontothisgeographicaldivision.Itisvestedwithjurisdictionoverspecifictypesofdisputes, includingcertainIP-relatedmatters.7 The main rationale for vesting the CAFC with exclusive jurisdictionoveraspecificsubjectmatterwastheexpectationthatthiswillcreateauniformityandreliabilityin the interpretation of the law.8TheinternalstructureoftheCAFCisthesameasinallothercircuitcourts.Itdoesnothaveappellateandcassationchambers,asitisitselfasecondinstancecourt.TheSupremeCourtisthefinalinstancecourtintheUnitedStates.Ithearsappealsfromallcircuitcourts,includingtheCAFC.9

UNITED

STATE

S

1 RichardDFreer,CivilProcedure,ThirdEdition(3ed.,WoltersKluwer2012).2 ‘CourtRoleandStructure’(UnitedStatesCourts)<https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure> (accessed 23 September 2020).3 MeganWoodhouse,‘Shop‘tilYouDrop:ImplementingFederalRulesofPatentLitigationProceduretoWearOutForumShoppingPatentPlaintiffs’, 99GEOLJ227(2010)246.4 ‘USFederalCourtsCircuitMap’(Uscourts.gov)<https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._federal_courts_circuit_map_1.pdf> (accessed 23 September 2020).5 JohnCBusby,‘CircuitSplit’(LegalInformationInstitute,LawCornell)<https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/circuit_split> (accessed 23 September 2020).6 TheCAFCwasestablishedunderArticleIIIoftheConstitutionandwasformedfromthemergeroftheUnitedStatesCourtofCustomsandPatent AppealsandtheappellatedivisionoftheUnitedStatesCourtofClaims.7 TypesofIPdisputesthatfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheCAFCwillbediscussedinmoredetailinSection2.2.8 HowardTMarkey,‘ThePhoenixCourt’[1982]10AmericanIntellectualPropertyLawAssociationQuarterlyJournal227,230-31.9 28U.S.Code§1254.


1.2. Criteria for selection of judgesTheselectioncriteriaforjudgesinthestatecourtsvarywidelyfromstatetostate.TherearenoIP-specificselection criteria for the federal judges, including judges selected to the CAFC. All federal judges areappointedbythepresidentoftheUnitedStatesupontheadviceandconsentoftheSenate.10 The Senate JudiciaryCommittee(astandingcommitteeof22senators)wouldusuallyconductconfirmationhearingsforeachnominee.TheAmericanBarAssociation,throughitsStandingCommitteeontheFederalJudiciary,isalso involved in theprocess: itevaluatestheprofessionalqualificationsofallnomineesatall levels.11 The committee is composedof 15members,most ofwhomare judgesat circuit level. Thegoal of thecommittee is to evaluate professional qualifications of the nominees, while their political ideology andphilosophyarenot taken intoaccount.Therefore, theBarAssociation’sStandingCommitteeessentiallyevaluates the integrity,12 professional competence13 and judicial temperament of the nominees.14 There are certain procedural differences in the evaluation process as far as investigations of the Supreme Court nominees and lower court nominees are concerned.15AfinalindicationfromtheAmericanBarAssociationthatacandidateiswell-qualifiedisnotarequirementtoconfirmthenominee,butapositiveoutcomeofthisinvestigationplaysaroleintheoverallpoliticalprocessofappointinganomineeandhisorherconfirmationbytheSenate.ThefinalstepintheselectionprocessofjudgesisavoteintheSenate.

Whilespecificdetailsastoselectioncriteriaemployedbythepresidentwhenappointingajudgearenotpubliclyavailable, it iswidelyknown that theprocess ishighlypolitical, and takes intoaccountvariousfactors.16 Experience, political ideology and personal loyalties have all played a role in the nominationprocess.17Diversityinthesenseofethnicityandgenderhavealsobeenrelevantfactors.18WhiletherearenospecificIP-relatedortechnicalselectioncriteriafortheCAFCjudges,19someCAFCjudgeshavesignificantIPandtechnicalbackground,whichinclude,interalia,privatepracticeexperience,scientificeducation,andexperienceaspatentexaminersandagentsattheUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice(USPTO).20

10 28U.S.Code§133(regardingdistrictcourts);28U.S.Code§44(regardingthecircuitcourts);ArtII,Sec2,Cl2oftheUnitedStatesConstitution1787 (regardingtheSupremeCourt).Forageneraloverview,referto‘FAQs:FederalCourts’(USCourts) <https://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges>(accessed23September2020).11 ‘TheAmericanBarAssociation’sStandingCommitteeontheFederalJudiciary’(AmericanBarAssociation) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/about_us/>(accessed23September2020).12 AmericanBarAssociation,‘StandingCommitteeontheFederalJudiciary–Whatitisandhowitworks’(AmericanBarAssociation) <https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/backgrounder-8-19-2020.pdf> (accessed23September2020)(where‘integrity’isunderstoodas‘thenominee’scharacterandgeneralreputationinthelega community,aswellasthenominee’sindustryanddiligence’).13 ibid(where‘professionalcompetence’isunderstoodas‘intellectualcapacity,judgement,writingandanalyticalabilities,knowledgeofthelaw, and breadth of professional experience’).14 ibid(where‘judicialtemperament’ isunderstoodas‘thenominee’scompassion,decisiveness,open-mindedness,courtesy,patience,freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law’).15 ‘ABAStandingCommitteeontheFederalJudiciary–EvaluationsofNomineestotheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedState’(AmericanBarAssociation) <https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/GAO/fjcscotusprocess.pdf>(accessed23September2020).16 ‘HowJudgesAndJusticesAreChosen’ (USHistory) <https://www.ushistory.org/gov/9d.asp> (accessed23September 2020); Congressional ResearchService,‘SupremeCourtAppointmentProcess:President’sSelectionOfANominee’(2018)<https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44235.pdf> (accessed23September2020),whichunderlinesthattwospecificconsiderationshavedriventhepresident’schoicesforSupremeCourtnominees: politicalinterestsandthedesiretodemonstratethat‘asearchwassuccessfullymadeforanomineehavingthehighestprofessionalqualifications’.17 ‘SupremeCourtAppointmentProcess:President’sSelectionofaNominee’(n16).18 ‘HowJudgesAndJusticesAreChosen’(n16),whichnotesthatin1967,PresidentLyndonJohnsonappointedthefirstAfricanAmericantothe SupremeCourt,namelyJusticeThurgoodMarshall.In1981,PresidentRonaldReaganappointedthefirstwomantotheSupremeCourt,namely JusticeSandraDayO’Connor.Sincethen,mostrecentpresidentsseemtohaveappointedmembersofvariousethnicminoritygroupsandwomen to district courts and circuit courts.19 Onceinservice,therearenoregularqualificationteststhatjudgesmustundertakeinordertoconfirmtheirqualification.Thisisvalidforalltypes ofmatters.Withrespecttodistrictcourts,oneoftheknowntrainingprogrammesisthePatentPilotProgrammes(PPP),whichwaslaunched in2011asaten-yearlongprojectthataddressestheassignmentofpatentcasestocertainU.S.districtcourts.Theoverallaimistofunnelpatent casestoaspecifiednumberofjudgessothatthereismoreconsistencyinthedecisionsandsothatthesejudgesbecomemoreskilledinpatent law.Itisstillinatrialperiodandisnotnationwide.SeemoreatFederalJuridicalCenter,‘PatentPilotProgram:Five-YearReport’(FederalJuridical Center)(2016)<https://www.fjc.gov/content/316142/patent-pilot-program-five-year-report>(accessed23September2020).20 InternationalIntellectualPropertyInstituteandUnitedStatesPatentandTrademarkOffice,‘StudyonSpecializedIntellectualPropertyCourts’ (2012) <https://iipi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Study-on-Specialized-IPR-Courts.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020; ‘Sharon Prost, Chief Judge’ (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/sharon-prost-chief-judge> (accessed 23 September 2020).

UNITED

STATE

S



Therearepresently94districtcourtsorganisedgeographically,21 with a total of 673 district judges as of 2018.22Aswasmentionedabove, the12circuitcourtsarealsoorganisedgeographically.Somecircuitcourts have courthouse venues in more than one location.23 The number of judges in the circuit courts vary–forexample,theFourthCircuithas15activejudges24 and the Ninth Circuit has 29 active judges.25 Asof2018, thetotalnumberof judgesatanappeal level is179,whereof167sit in theregionalcircuitcourts and 12 active judges sit in the CAFC.26Finally,theSupremeCourtislocatedinWashingtonD.C.andhas nine justices.27

TheCAFCisalsolocatedinWashington,D.C.,whereitholdsregularsessionsonceamonthtohearoralarguments.28Furthermore,whileitisprescribedthattheCAFCwouldsitintheDistrictofColumbia,itcanalsositinotherplacesspecifiedinthelaw,29aswellas‘mayhold“specialsessions”atanyplacewithinitscircuitasthenatureofthebusinessmayrequire,anduponsuchnoticeasthecourtorders’.30 The rationale behind such flexibility with respect to the location of the CAFC is that it must satisfy the needs of the litigants.31Specifically,itisimportanttoensureareasonableopportunityforcitizenstoappearbeforethecourt with as little inconvenience and expense for them as practicable.32

The sessions that take place outside of Washington can be held in various venues such as statecourthouses and law schools.33 This in turn helped to expose the Court to its national jurisdiction and facilitatedthefulfillingofitsobligationtoaccommodatetheneedsofalllitigants.34However,overtime,fewersessionsoutsideofWashingtonaretakingplace(usuallyonceayear),andinmanycasesincitiesconsideredtobetechnologycentressuchasPaloAlto,HoustonandAtlanta.35Asaresultofthis,somearguethattheCourtshouldloweritslitigationcostsinordertofulfilitsstatutoryduty,becauserequiringall litigantstotraveltoWashingtonD.C.isfarfromcostefficient.36 InadditiontothepossibilityfortheCAFCtositindifferentlocations,itisalsopossibletotemporarilyassigndistrictandcircuitjudgesfromothercourtstoactasjudgesoftheCAFC;suchjudgescanbeassignedbytheChiefJusticeoftheUnitedStates37 or chief judge of the CAFC.38

21 USCourts,‘FederalCourtFinder’(USCourts)<https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-court-finder/search>(accessed23September2020).22 USCourts,‘AuthorizedJudgeships’(USCourts)<https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/allauth.pdf>(accessed23September2020).23 Forexample,theNinthCircuithasitsmainseatintheJamesR.BrowningCourthouseinSanFrancisco,andadditionalvenuesinLosAngeles, PortlandandSeattle(UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit<https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/information/locations.php> accessed 23 September 2020).24 UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFourthCircuit<http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/judges/judges-of-the-court>(accessed23September2020).25 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit <https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_db.php?pk_id=0000000898> (accessed 23 September 2020).26 ibid.27 SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates<https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx>(accessed23September2020).28 CowenWilsonetal.,‘TheUnitedStatesCourtofClaims:AHistory-PartII-Origin,Development,Jurisdiction1855-1978’(1978)124-131.29 28U.S.Code§48(a);Rule47.1(b)oftheFederalCircuitRules,whichstatesthat‘thecourtmayholdsessionsinanyplacenamedandpermitted inU.S.Code28§48’.AlistofsessionsthattookplaceoutsideofWashingtoncanbefoundhere: <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/the-court/Judges_by_designation_2018.pdf>accessed23September2020.30 Accordingto28U.S.Code§48(b)eachcircuitcourt,includingtheCAFC,mayhold‘specialsessions’atanyplacewithinitscircuitasthenature ofthebusinessmayrequire,anduponsuchnoticeasthecourtorders.Furthermore,accordingto28U.S.Code§48(e)inthecaseof‘emergency conditions’whennolocationwithintherespectivecircuitisreasonablyavailablewheresuchasessioncouldbeheld,eachcircuitcourtmayhold asessionatanyplacewithintheUSoutsideitscircuituponsatisfyingcertainconditionslistedin28U.S.Code§48(f).31 PaulRGugliuzza,‘RethinkingFederalCircuitJurisdiction’(2012)100TheGeorgetownLawJournal1437,1458.32 28U.S.Code§48(d).33 FederalRulesonAppellateProcedure,PracticenotestoRule34;‘FederalCircuitSchedulesApril[2019]SessionfortheMinneapolis-SaintPaulArea’ (UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit) <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/announcements/federal-circuit-schedules-april-session-minneapolis-saint-paul-area>accessed23September2020; ‘FederalCircuitSchedulesOctober[2018]SessionforChicago’(UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit) <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/announcements/2018/PublicNotice-October2018Session-08202018.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020.34 Markey(n8)235.35 Gugliuzza(n31).36 Elizabeth IWinston, ‘Differentiating the Federal Circuit Symposium: Evolving the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and Its Patent Law Jurisprudence’[2011]MissouriLawReview813,829-830.37 i.e.,thechiefjudgeoftheSupremeCourt.38 28U.S.Code§291and292.

UNITED

STATE

S


AnotherpossibilitytoincreaseaccesstotheCAFCisbyremotecommunication.Inparticular,thediscussionofanymatterthatmayaidindisposingoftheproceedings,includingsimplifyingtheissuesanddiscussingasettlement,canbeconductedbytelephone.39Inaddition,somecircuitcourts,suchastheSecond,Third,Eighth,NinthandTenth,usevideoconferencingtoconducthearings.40Whilesomesources indicatethattheCAFCalsoemploystechnologyfororalhearings,41 it seems that it is not used frequently as a matter of current practice.42

Aswasmentioned above, the CAFC is comprised of 12 active judges.43 The 12 judges of the CAFC are supported by six senior judges.44Withrespecttothelatter,wheneligible,judgesmaydecidetotakeseniorstatus,whichpermitsthemtocontinuetoserveontheCourtwhilehandlingfewercasesthanajudgeinactive service. All active judges have a strict residency requirement obliging them to live within 50 miles of theDistrictofColumbiainordertoserveontheCAFC.45 Such proximity usually helps newer judges learn manyunfamiliarlegalsubjects,whichalsoresultsinactivejudgesworkingtogethermoreclosely,collegiallyandcontinually,thanifthejudgeswerescatteredindifferentlocations.46

II.Rules of procedureIPdisputesinthefederalcourtsateachlevelaregovernedbytheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure(FRCP)47 and the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE).48Allappealproceedings, including those in theCAFC,arealsogovernedbytheFederalRulesonAppellateProcedure(FRAP).Inaddition,therearetwofurthersetsofrulesthatgovernparticularproceedingsattheCAFC:(i)theCourt’sInternalOperatingProcedures(IOP),and(ii)theconsolidatedFederalCircuitRulesofPracticeandFederalRulesofAppellateProcedure.Withregardtothelatterconsolidatedsetofrules,someprovisionsoftheFRAParenotapplicabletotheCAFCorhavebeenreplaced by the corresponding Federal Circuit Rules. This is clearly indicated in the consolidated document oftheFederalCircuitRulesofPracticeandFederalRulesofAppellateProcedure.49

2.1. Composition of the court in IP casesCases at a district level are heard by a single judge.50Atthislevel,thereisthepossibilitytohavecasesheardby a jury.51Specifically,patent,52 trade mark53 and copyright cases54 can be adjudicated by a jury as long as the question to be determined is one of fact and not of law.

39 Winston(n36)830.40 ibid.41 Refertotherule52(a)(3)(K)ofthe2016consolidatedFederalCircuitRulesofPracticeandFederalRulesofAppellateProcedure,accordingtowhich the court may charge and collect a fee of $200 per remote location for counsel’s requested use of videoconferencing equipment in connection with each oral argument; the 2010 annual report of the CAFC also notes as follows: ‘We have even added videoconferencing capability in both courtrooms,affordingtheoptioninthefuturetohearargumentspresentedfromremotesites.’(Seemoreat‘JudicialConferencefortheUnited StatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit-ChiefJudgePaulRMichel-StateoftheCourt’(UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederal Circuit,20May2010)<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/announcements/2010/stateofthecourt10.pdf>accessed23September2020.42 Winston(n36).43 UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit’(UnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit) <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/judges/sharon-prost-chief-judge>accessed23September2020.44 Beginningatage65,anactivejudgemaytake‘seniorstatus’.Inthiscapacitythejudgewillprovidevolunteerservicetothecourt,dealingwith fewercasesthananactivejudge(seeUnitedStatesCourts(FAQs:FederalJudges) <https://www.uscourts.gov/faqs-federal-judges#faq-What-is-a-senior-judge?>accessed23September2020). Inthecountspresentedinthisdocumentseniorjudgesarenotincludedunlessthecontextsuggestsotherwise.45 28U.S.Code§44(c).46 PaulR.Michel,‘Past,Present,andFutureintheLifeoftheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit’(2010)59AmericanUniversityLawReview1199,1203.47 Rule1FRCP.48 Rule 101(a) FRE.49 FRAPandFederalCircuitRules(consolidateddocumentwithpracticenotes)(1December2018),foreword.50 Freer (n 1) 15.51 Rule38FRCP.52 JenniferMiller,‘Shouldjurieshearcomplexpatentcases?’[2004]3DukeLaw&TechnologyLawReview1–20.53 HanaFinancialIncvHanaBank.574US(2015).54 FeltnervColumbiaPicturesTelevision523U.S.340(1998),wheretheSupremeCourtheldthattheSeventhAmendmentprovidedthattherightto ajurytrialshouldbegrantedinallissuesrelatedtoanawardofstatutorydamagesundertheCopyrightAct.Inthiscase,theCourttracedpractices over a long historical period and concluded that juries have consistently been deciding copyright damages questions.

UNITED

STATE

S


Atanappeallevel,casesareusuallyheardbyapanelofthree.55Inrarecases,itisalsopossibleforacaseatanappealleveltobeheardbyallactivejudges.Thisprocessiscalledan‘enbanchearing’.56 An exception tothis istheNinthCircuit,whichhasthehighestnumberof judges,29 intotal,57andtherefore,enbanchearings in this circuit are heard by the chief judge and ten active judges.58 Opinions delivered en banc carry moreweightandareusuallydecidedonlyafterapanelhasfirstheardthecaseandrenderedajudgement.59 Inaddition,whileatanappeallevelmotionsarenormallyconsideredbyapanel,acircuitjudgemayalsoactalone in any motion.60However,therearesomelimitsastohowfarasinglejudgecanactonsuchamotion.Forexample,acircuitjudgemaynotdismissorotherwisedetermineanappeal.61Usually,suchsinglejudgemotionsarelimitedtonon-dispositivematters,wherethepartythatfilesaparticularmotiondoesnotintendto dispose of all or part of the claims in its favour.62Similarly,motionsforstayinexceptionalcases,inwhichtimerequirementsmaketheprocedurecarriedoutbyapanelimpracticable,canalsobeconsideredbyasingle judge.63Thetypesofmotionsfallingwithinthiscategoryinclude:astayofthejudgementororderofadistrictcourtpendingappeal;approvalofabondorothersecurityprovidedtoobtainastayofjudgement;oranordersuspending,modifying,restoringorgrantinganinjunctionwhileanappealispending.64

Asoneof thecircuitcourts, cases in theCAFCareusuallyalsoheardbyapanelof three judges.65 The CAFCchief judgeappointsa ‘motionspanel’ everymonthanddesignatesa lead judge.66 Such motions panels comprise three judges assigned on a rotating basis to review motions received during the prescribed month.67Another typeofpanel thatconsiderscasesare ‘meritspanels’,whichconsistof threeormorejudgesassigned toconsiderbriefs,hearoralarguments ifany,decidecases,and renderanappropriateopinion.68 Whethermotionsareheardbythemotionspanelorthemeritspaneldependsonwhenthemotionisfiled.69Generally,motionsfiledbeforethedeliveryofappellatebriefs70 to the merits panel are heard by the motions panel.71Ontheotherhand,ifthemotionisfiledafterthebriefshavebeendeliveredtothemeritspanel, themerits panel generallywill decide themotion.72 The CAFC can also sit in an expanded panel format.73Since its formation, theCourthasoftensat inafive-judgepanel format.While thereasonsforchoosingthisformatareunclear,alikelyexplanationisthatthecourtsreplacedbytheCAFCin1982hadthepowertositasanexpandedpanelwithfivepresidingjudges.74Yet,overtheyearssittingasanexpandedpanel has become less common for the CAFC.75Finally,itisalsopossibletohaveacaseheardbytheentirecircuit(‘enbanc’).AmongthereasonsforenbancactiontheCAFCnotes,inanon-exhaustivemanner,thenecessityforsecuringormaintaininguniformityofdecisions,theinvolvementofaquestionofexceptionalimportance,ortheinitiation,continuation,orresolutionofaconflictwithanothercircuit.76

55 28U.S.Code§46(b).56 28U.S.Code§46(c);thistypeofhearingisnotfavoured,however,andordinarilywillnotbeorderedunless:1)enbancconsiderationisnecessary tosecureormaintainuniformityofthecourt’sdecisions;or2)theproceedinginvolvesaquestionofexceptionalimportance(FRAP,rule36).57 28U.S.Code§44(a).58 Rule35-3FRAP.59 Lee Epstein and Stefanie A. Lindquist, The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior (Oxford University Press 2017), 200, footnote 15.60 Rule27(c)FRAP;seealsoRule25 (a)(3)FRAP,whichallowsanymotiontobefiledwithasingle judge,providedthatamotionrequestsrelief that may be granted by a single judge.61 Rule27(c)FRAP.62 ‘Seventh Circuit Civil Appeals: Motions’ (Practical Law) Note Number 7-603-1068; ‘Eleventh Circuit Civil Appeals: Motions’ (Practical Law) NoteNumberW-001-1389.63 Rule8(a)(2)(D)andRule18(a)(2)(D)FRAP.64 Rule8(a)(2)(D)inconjunctionwithRule8(a)(2)andRule8(a)(1)FRAP.AccordingtoRule8(a)(1)ofFRAPapartymustordinarilytakeanactionfirst atthedistrictlevelregardingthesegrounds.Yet,apartycanseekreliefatthecircuitcourtprovidedthatoneofthegroundsinRule8(2)(A)ofFRAP is satisfied, i.e.moving first in the district courtwould be impracticable; or the district court denied themotion or failed to afford the relief requested and the party is now providing reasons given by the district court for its action.65 Rule47(2)(a)oftheFederalCircuitRulesofPracticeandFederalRulesofAppellateProcedure.66 Rule2(1)oftheIOP.67 ibid Rule 1(2).68 ibid Rule 1(2).69 ibid Rule 2(4).70 An appellate brief is a brief instigating the appellate proceedings and the appellant’s response.71 Rule2(4)andRule2(6)oftheIOP.72 ibid Rule 2(6) and Rule 2(7).73 28U.S.Code§46(b).74 Winston(n36),822.75 Kenneth R Adamo and others, ‘Survey of the Federal Circuit’s Patent LawDecisions in 2000: Y2K in Review’ (2001) 50 AmericanUniversity LawReview1435,163176 Rule13(1)andRule13(2)oftheIOP.

UNITED

STATE

S


WhenacaseisdecidedbytheCAFC,thepanelmaydeterminethatitsdecisionwilladdsignificantlytoabodyoflaw,andthusitissuesaprecedentialopinion.Decisionsthatdonotaddsignificantlytothebodyoflawareissued as non-precedential.77 The CAFC has developed criteria according to which it would decide whether to issueaprecedentialopinion,whichincludes,forinstance,testcases;casesthatestablishanewruleoflaw;ifanexistingruleoflawiscriticised,clarified,alteredormodified;ifanexistingruleoflawisappliedtofactssignificantlydifferent fromthose towhich that rulehaspreviouslybeenapplied,etc.78 Such a division into precedentialandnon-precedentialhasbeenundertakentoeasetheworkloadoftheCourt,asonlyprecedentialopinions involve the full reasoning of the Court.79Inessence,non-precedentialopinionsdonotstatethefactsorsummarisetheparties’arguments,orrestatefactsthatpartiesalreadyknow.Suchopinionsmerelyindicateto the losing party why its arguments were not persuasive.80 Importantly, the fact that an opinion is non-precedentialdoesnotmeanthatthecaseathandisunimportant,butitmerelyindicatesthatthecasedoesnotaddsignificantlytothebodyoflawordoesnotqualifyunderthecriteriaforprecedentialopinions.81

IntheSupremeCourt,alltheninejusticesoftheCourtusuallyconsiderallcases.Wheneverajusticehasnottakenpartintheconsiderationorthediscussionofthecase,theopinionoftheCourtstatesitexplicitlytogetherwithanyconcurringordissentingjudge.AsinglejudgeoftheCourtmay,however,ruleonproceduralmotions,suchasemergencymotionstostaylowercourtproceedings.82

2.2. Jurisdiction in IP casesAsnotedabove,thefederalcourtshavealimitedspecialjurisdiction,alsocalled‘exclusivesubjectmatterjurisdiction’.83 The rationale behind this is that the federal courts are the respective forum for resolving exclusive disputes arising under any Act of Congress.84

The jurisdiction of the district courts as far as IP disputes are concerned is defined exhaustively.85 Itencompasses patents,86 patent designs,87 copyrights,88 trademarks,89 unfair competition,90 plant variety protection91 and mask works.92 Specifically,with respect topatentsandcopyrights, theUSConstitutionrequiresthattheUSCongressshallhavethepower‘topromotetheprogressofscienceandusefularts,by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.’93Thisconstitutionalprovision,oftencalledthe‘PatentClause’,the‘CopyrightClause’,ormoregenerally,the‘IntellectualPropertyClause’,hasgivenrisetothePatentAct94 and the Copyright Law Act.95 These Acts of Congress bring in patent and copyright law issues under the umbrella of the federal system.96 Plantvarietyprotectionandmaskworksarealsogovernedbythefederallegislation,whichalsobringsthemunder the jurisdiction of the federal district courts.97

77 Theterminologyhere(precedentialandnon-precedential)doesnothavethesamemeaningas‘precedent’wouldhavewhenoneexaminesthe differences between common law and civil law systems.78 Rule10(4)oftheIOP.79 ibid Rule 10(1).80 ibid.81 ibid Rule 10(3).82 Rule23oftheRulesoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates.83 Freer (n 1) 166.84 Statecourtshave‘generalsubjectmatterjurisdiction’,meaningthattheycanhearanyclaim,excludingthoseoverwhichthefederalcourtshave exclusivesubjectmatterjurisdiction.AccordingtoArticleVI,cl2.OftheUnitedStatesConstitution1787,theConstitutionandfederallawserveas the‘supremeLawoftheLand’,meaningthatwhenstatelawandfederallawclashthelatterprevails.85 28U.S.Code§1338.NotethatcybercrimeandinformationsecurityarenotconsideredIPdisputesandtherearenospecialisedcourtsforsuch matters.Cybercrimeismainlyacriminallawissue,whichcanbeprosecutedundervariousfederalpiecesoflegislationssuchastheComputer FraudandAbuseAct(18U.S.Code§1030)andtheWiretapAct(18U.S.Code§2511).Regardinginformationsecurity,whilethereisnosingleActof Congress in this field, various sector-specific statutes govern the issue on a federal level, such as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (15U.S.Code§6801),theHealthInformationPortabilityandAccountabilityAct(42U.S.Code§1320d–6),andtheFederalTradeCommissionAct (15U.S.Code§45).Asaresult,cybercrimeandinformationsecurityisunderthejurisdictionofthefederalcourts.86 USPatentAct1952(35U.S.Code).87 Section 171of theUSPatentAct 1952; ‘Intellectual Property:OverviewbyPractical Law Intellectual Property&Technology’ (Practical Law) NoteNumber8-383-4565(patentdesignsapplytonew,original,andornamentaldesignsofmanufacturedarticles).89 USTrademarkActof1946(15U.S.Code)(alsocalledtheLanhamAct).90 28U.S.Code§1338(a),whichspecifiesthatdistrictcourtsshallhaveoriginaljurisdictionoveranycivilactionassertingaclaimbasedonunfair competition law when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent, plant variety protection or trademark laws; therelevantActofCongressinrelationtounfaircompetitionistheUSTrademarkActof1946(15USCode)andinparticularSection43(a).91 PlantVarietyProtectionActof1970(7U.S.Code§§2321-2582).92 TheSemiconductorChipProtectionAct1984(17U.S.Code§§901-914);‘IntellectualProperty:Overview’(PracticalLaw) Note Number 8-383-4565 (mask works are ‘collections of templates (photographic masks) used to create complex electronic circuits on semiconductor chips’).93 ArticleI,Section8,cl8oftheUnitedStatesConstitution1787.94 35U.S.Code.95 17U.S.Code.96 Itmustbenotedthat,certainissuesarisingpriorto1978(theyearwhentheCopyrightActcameintoforce)couldstillbesubjecttostatelaw. Thus,iftheissueisnotcoveredbytheActandifthereisastatelawthatcoverstheissue,thecasewillbetriedinthestatecourt.97 28U.S.Code§1338;thePlantVarietyProtectionActof1970;theSemiconductorChipProtectionAct1984.

UNITED

STATE

S


Asfarastrademarksareconcerned,itispossibletoobtainafederaltrademarkbyvirtueofanapplicationtotheUSPTO,whichcoverstheentireterritoryoftheUS.Inparalleltothis,itisalsopossibletoobtainastatetrade mark in any state of choice.98AnydisputearisingfromaUSPTOtrademarkmustbeheardbythefederalcourts. Any disputes with respect to a state trade mark are heard in the courts of the state that issued the trade mark.Section43(a)oftheUSTrademarkActisthelegalbasisforbringingaclaimforunfaircompetition,namelyunregisteredtrademarkinfringement,falseadvertising,falsedesignationoforiginandfalseendorsement.99 Thus,asafederalpieceof legislation,disputesarisingunderSection43(a)oftheTrademarkActcouldbebrought within the federal court system.100IfadisputeconcernsaUSPTOmarkaswellascommonlawtrademarksorstatetrademarksandthereisaconnectionamongstallofthemarks,thentheentirecasecanbeheardinafederalcourt,whichwilladdressthecommonlawandstatetrademarks.101Issuespertainingtothestatus of a patent or a federal trade mark would be resolved within the dispute-resolution system integrated intheUSPTO.102Inaddition,thereisnoseparateprocedurefortherecognitionoftrademarksas‘well-known’.Instead,therecognitionisconductedbytheUSPTOaspartofoppositionproceedings,103 and by the district courts in infringement and invalidity proceedings.104Finally,undertheDefendTradeSecretsActof2016,partiesinclaimsarisingunderthatActhavethechoicebetweenbringingtheirclaimsunderstateorfederallaws.Inthatsense,theActsupplementsbutdoesnotpre-emptstatelaw.105

ThejurisdictionoverIP-relatedagreementsisallocatedbetweenthefederalandstatecourtsdependingonwhetherthedisputeisanIPoracontractlawone.Theallocationofthedisputewilldependon‘thecasemade and relief demanded by the plaintiff’.106Thus,thejurisdictionofthefederalcourtsisestablishedifthecaserequirestheconstructionoftheIPlaws.107Thetrialcourtmust,therefore,‘reviewandanalysetheplaintiff’spleadings’anddedicatespecialattentiontothereliefrequestedbytheplaintiffwhen‘makingthedeterminationastowhetheracauseofactionarisesundertheIPlaws,orisacauseofactionbaseduponalicensing agreement’.108TypicalexamplesofcausesofactionarisingundertheIPlawsarethequestionsofinventorship/authorship,infringement,validityandenforceabilityofIPrights.109However,inadditiontosuchclear-cutexamplesofIPdisputes,thefederalcourtswillalsobecompetentinnon-IPquestions,suchas,forexample,a‘questionofcontractlaw[which]mustbedecidedpriortoreachingthe[IP-related]question.’110 Forinstance,abreachofapatentlicencewillbeapatentdisputewherethecourtwouldneedtoassesswhatproductsfallunderthislicence,orwhetherthedefendanthastrespassedintothepatentprotectedfield. On the other hand, if the question of the patent scope had already been determined in previousinfringement proceedings and/or if the court only needs to construe the term of the licence to determine the scopeofthedefendant’scontractualresponsibility,thefederalcourtwilldeclinejurisdictionasthematterwould essentially be one of contract law and not patent law.111Thedecisivefactoris,therefore,whethertheapplication of patent law is required to solve the case.112

98 Applicationsforstatetrademarksneedtobedirectedtotherespectivetrademarkofficeofthespecificstate.Issuespertainingtostatetrademarks areresolvedwithinthestatecourtsystem.Thisdualsystemisvalidonlyfortrademarksandisnotthecaseforpatents,whicharegovernedentirely bythefederalrules;‘StateTrademarkInformationLinks’(USPTO) <https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/process-overview/state-trademark-information-links>accessed23September2020.99 15U.S.Code§1125.100 Notethatcertainunfaircompetitionlawissuescouldalsocomewithinthescopeofthestatecourtsystemjurisdiction,whatleadstothefederal andstatecourtshavingconcurrentjurisdictioninthisfield.Inpracticethough,mostlawsuitsarebroughtinthefederalcourts,asfederaljudges are said to have greater familiarity with the Trademark Act (‘Trademark:OverviewbyPracticalLawIntellectualProperty&Technology’(PracticalLaw)PracticeNote9-512-8249).101 OliviaBarattaandTheodoreH.Davis,‘TrademarkenforcementintheUnitedStates’(Lexology,12November2018) <https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f5642fe8-f8a8-47e7-8c38-dd8c8ab3d0a9>accessed23September2020.102 OneshouldrefertotheUSPTO’sfirstinstance,and,ifunsatisfiedwiththedecisionoftheofficer,anappealcanbefiledwitheitherthePatentTrial andAppealBoardortheTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard,dependingonthesubjectmatteratstake.103 USPTO,‘Well-knownmarks’(USPTOGOV) <https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/laws-regulations/office-policy-and-international-affairs-well-known-marks>accessed23September2020.104 EmpresaCubanadelTabacovCulbroCorp.,399F.3d462(2dCir.2005).105 Inpractice,itisclaimedthatthefederalcourtsmaybeamoredesirableforumforpartiesastheyhaveaheightenedpleadingstandard,whichmay promptmoreprecisefactualallegationstosupportagivencase.Inparticular,inthefederalcourtstheplaintiffmustshowentitlementtoarelief, whichiscontrastedwithsomestatecourtswhereablanketassertionmaysuffice,asperRule8(a)(2)FRCP.(BellAtlanticCorp.vTwombly,550 U.S.544,555 (2007);JesseSalenandRebeccaEdelson, ‘TheFederalDefendTradeSecretsActvsTheCaliforniaUniformTradeSecretsAct’ (SheppardMullin,21July2016) <https://www.intellectualpropertylawblog.com/archives/the-federal-defend-trade-secrets-act-vs-the-california-uniform-trade-secrets-act> accessed 23 September 2020.106 HealyvSeaGullSpecialtyCo.35S.Ct.658,659.107 NewMarshallEngineCo.vMarshallEngineCo.,223U.S.473,478(1912);AmeliaRinehart, ‘TheFederalQuestioninPatent-LicenseCases’[2014]90(1)IndianaLawJournal8.108 AirProd.&Chemicals,Inc.vReichholdChemicals,Inc.,755F.2d1559,1562(Fed.Cir.1985).109 Bd.ofRegentsexrel.UnivofTex.vNipponTel.&Tel.Corp.,414F.3d1358,1363(Fed.Cir.2005).110 AirProd.&Chemicals,Inc.(n108).111 Rinehart (n 107) 9.112 GjerlovvSchuylerLaboratories131F.3d1016,1024,1025(Fed.Cir.1997).

UNITED

STATE

S


In termsof the legalstanding in IP litigation, theUS lawdoesnotdistinguishbetweenclaimantsbeingnaturalpersonsandclaimantshavingthestatusofa legalperson. Inparticular,accordingtoTitle22oftheUnitedStatesCode§1338,theoriginaljurisdictionofdistrictcourtscomprises‘anycivilactionarisingunderanyActofCongressrelatingtopatents,plantvarietyprotection,copyrightsandtrademarks’.SuchageneralwordingofthisprovisionallowsalltypesofclaimantsentitledtoIPprotectiontodefendtheirrightsbeforedistrictcourts,regardlessoftheirlegalstatus.Inaddition,inrelationtocopyright,suchawordingalso does not allow for a differentiation between claimants being authors of the work and other types of copyrightownerssuchassuccessorsintitle.ThatisconfirmedbyTitle17USCode§501(b),accordingtowhich‘thelegalorbeneficialownerofanexclusiverightunderacopyright’isentitledtoinstituteanactionfor infringement with the competent court.

Atanappealslevel,disputesaregenerallybroughttotherespectivecircuitcourtaccordingtothegeographicalarrangement,unlessthecasefallsundertheexclusivejurisdictionoftheCAFC.113 Except for the Supreme Court,theCAFCistheonlyappellatelevelcourtbearingthepowertosetprecedentsovertheterritoryoftheentireUnitedStates.114Aswasdiscussedabove,theCAFCisanappellatecourtwithjurisdictionovervariousissues, includingcertainIPrights.115 It isworthnotingthattheCAFCwasnotcreatedasaspecialisedIPCourt,andthusits jurisdictionisnot limitedtoonlyIPdisputes. Itwasratherenvisagedasacourtwitha‘varieddocketspanningabroadrangeoflegalissuesandtypesofcases.’116 This approach was due to the strong concern that specialised court judgesmight developa formof ‘tunnel vision’ and lose theirgeneralistperspective,whichisessentialinensuringthatthelawdevelopsinaccordancewithotherfieldsof jurisprudence’.117Consequently,theCAFCdoesnotdecideIPdisputesonly.Instead,itdealswithvariousother issueswhich fallwelloutside theambitof IP law,and tackles issues, includingbutnot limited to,internationaltrade,governmentcontracts,veterans’benefitsandfederalpersonnel.118TheCAFC,however,isnotcompetenttoreviewanyappealsincriminalcases,includingIP-related.119

Thatsaid,theCAFC’spatentlawjurisdictionseemstohavebeenthemaindrivingforcebehindtheformationofthe Court.120Therefore,unsurprisingly,nearlyalloftheIPcasesinvolvepatents,121 which has led to enhancing uniformity and predictability of patent law litigation.122Importantly,followingtheAmericaInventsActof2011,slight amendments to the jurisdiction of the CAFC were introduced.123Asa result, theCAFCmusthearallappeals where the original action or counterclaim arose under patent law.124Eventually,evenifallpatentlawissueshavebeendisposedofatthedistrictcourtlevel,theCAFCmaystillhavejurisdiction.125 The CAFC also hearsappealsfromtheUSPTO’sTrademarkTrialandAppealBoard,126thePatentTrialandAppealBoard,127

113 28U.S.Code§1291.114 Winston (n36),814.Thisnation-wide jurisdictionhas raised issues regarding theoverloadof thisCourt,namelywhether theCourtwouldbe abletohandleinatimelymannerallthecasesitwouldbevestedjurisdictionwith.(ibid815,footnote9).115 28U.S.Code§1292(c)and§1295(a)(1);‘CourtJurisdiction|USCourtOfAppealsForTheFederalCircuit’ (USCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit)<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/court-jurisdiction>accessed23September2020.116 TheSenateReportconcerningtheFederalCourtsImprovementActof1982thatestablishedtheFederalCircuit(ReportNr.97-275)6.117 TimothyB.Dyk,‘FederalCircuitJurisdiction:LookingBackAndThinkingForward’[2018]67AmericanUniversityLawReview974;Commission onrevisionoftheFederalCourtAppellateSystem,Structureandinternalprocedures:Recommendationsforchange(1975),reprintedin67F.R.D. 195,369–71,234;PaulR.Michel, ‘Past,Present,andFutureintheLifeoftheU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit’(2010)59American UniversityLawReview1199,1200.118 28U.S.Code§1295.119 TheFederalCircuit’swebsite’sin‘frequentlyaskedquestions’says:‘Eventhoughthiscourthasnocriminaljurisdiction,wefrequentlygetthis question.’(Seehere:<http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/the-court/faqs>accessed23September2020).120 PaulineNewman,‘TheFederalCircuit:JudicialStabilityorJudicialActivism?’(1993)42AM.U.L.REV683,684-85.121 ibid;TimothyB.Dyk,‘ThoughtsontheRelationshipBetweentheSupremeCourtandtheFederalCircuit’[2016]16(1)Chicago-KentJournalof IntellectualProperty78(thetotaltimedevotedtopatentdocketlikelyexceeds80%);AnitaB.PolottandRachelE.Fertig,‘2017Trademarklaw decisionsoftheFederalCircuit’[2018]67AmericanUniversityLawReview1357(in2017,only11trademarkcaseshavebeendecidedbytheCAFC, whereassomeinvolvedpatentissues).The2018CAFCstatisticsnotethat29%oftheappealsconcernedpatentlawcasesstemmingfromdistrict courts,while38%relatedtopatentlawcasesonappealfromtheUSPTOandonly2%concernedtrademarks(UnitedStatesCourtof AppealsfortheFederalCircuit–Appealsfiledbycategoryin2018- <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/the-court/statistics/CaseloadbyCategory2018_-_Final.pdf>accessed23September2020).122 BeighleyJrGeorgeC,‘TheCourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit:HasitFulfilledCongressionalExpectations?’[2011]21(3)FordhamIntellectual Property,MediaandEntertainmentLawJournal671,704.123 AlsocalledtheLeahy-SmithAmericaInventsAct2011.124 Section19(b)oftheLeahy-SmithAmericaInventsAct2011,amending28U.S.Code§1295(a)(1).125 ThisaspectwashighlycriticisedintherecentOracleAmerica,Inc.vGoogle,Inc.,No.17-1118(Fed.Cir.2018),whicheventuallyendedup intheCAFCasOracle’slawsuitoriginallycontainedapatentclaim.Thecaseuponappeal,however,pertainedentirelytocopyrightlawand, inparticular,softwareandfairuse.126 28U.S.Code§1295(a)(4)(B);Section21oftheUSTrademarkActof1946.127 28U.S.Code§1295(a)(4)(A);Sections145and146oftheUSPatentsAct1952.

UNITED

STATE

S


aswellastheUSInternationalTradeCommission.128ItalsohasjurisdictiontohearappealsfromtheCourtofFederalClaims,129which,togetherwiththeCAFC,wasalsoestablishedbytheFederalCourtsImprovementActof 1982.130Additionally,appealsrelatedtoplantvarietydisputesalsofallwithintheCAFCjurisdiction.131

Customsmatters involving IP rights,whichare enforcedby theUSCustomsandBorderProtection, fallwithinthejurisdictionoftheCourtofInternationalTrade.132 Further appeals against judgements of the Court ofInternationalTradearethenreviewedbytheCAFC.133Aswasmentionedabove,whiletheCAFChastheexclusivecompetencetoconsidercertainIPdisputessuchaspatents,thiscourtisalsocompetenttohearothernon-IPmatters.Therefore,theCAFCreviewsthesecustomsdisputesnotbecausetheyareIP-related,but because they fall within its exclusive jurisdiction as one of those matters it is competent to review.134

Ontheotherhand,taxmatters,includingappealsagainstthedecisionsofthetaxenforcementauthority,i.e.theInternalRevenueService,aredealtwithbytheUnitedStatesTaxCourt,thedistrictcourts,theCourtofFederalClaims,andthebankruptcycourts.135 None of these courts can be considered as a part of the specialisedIPjudiciary,althoughthedistrictcourtsmayhearIPcases.

Finally,decisionsinIP-relateddisputesdecidedbytheCAFCoranyothercircuitcourtcanbeappealedtothe Supreme Court.136TheSupremeCourtonlyhearsappealsonconstitutionalorfederallawissues,andtheadmission of such appeals is subject to juridical discretion.137Asaresult,petitionsforwritofcertiorariareoftendenied;thespecificconditionsforthewritapplicationarefurtherdescribedbelow.

2.3. Evidence in IP casesThe FRE establishes the rules on evidence. These are applicable in all federal district and circuit courts.138 IntheUSlitigationprocedure,akeyphaseisthediscoverystageatthetriallevel.Thisisapre-trialphaseoflitigation,duringwhichthepartiesdisclosetoeachotherevidence,informationanddocumentsthatmayberelevant to the claims and defences in the case. The discovery stage is generally supervised by the parties themselves and has a very general involvement from the court.139 The default limits of discovery are usually provided by the court.140However,partiescan,andoftendo,requestthatthecourtmodifyorsupplementthose limits.141Whileitcanbeveryexpensiveandtimeconsuming,thebenefitsofthediscoverystagetotheparties are vast as it renders parties better prepared for trial.142

128 TheU.S.InternationalTradeCommissionisanindependent,quasi-judicialfederalagencywithintheexecutivebranchvestedwithbroadinvestigative responsibilitiesontradematters.AsfarasIPisconcerned,theCommissionadjudicatescasesinvolvingimportsthatallegedlyinfringeIPRs.The legalbasisfortheseactionsisSection337oftheTariffActof1930,asamended(19U.S.C.§1337),whichmakesunfairmethodsofcompetitionand unfair acts involving the importation and sale of certain articles in the U.S. unlawful. Such unfair acts under Section 337 investigations includepatent,trademark,andcopyrightinfringement,aswellasothertypesofunfaircompetition,suchasantitrustviolationsandtradesecret misappropriation.Thatsaid,thevastmajorityofinvestigationsarebasedonallegationsofpatentinfringement.TheprimaryremedyunderSection337 isanexclusionorder,whichwouldstopinfringingimportsfromenteringtheUnitedStates.Section337investigationsincludetrialproceedings before administrative law judges and review by the Commission with a further appeal to the CAFC. The Commission has adopted its own rules ofprocedure.Formoredetailssee:UnitedStatesInternationalTradeCommission,Section337Rules <https://www.usitc.gov/intellectual_property/section_337_rules.htm>accessed23September2020.129 28U.S.Code§1498.TheCourtofFederalClaimshasjurisdiction,amongotherthings,overmonetaryclaimsagainsttheUnitedStatesfounded uponeithertheConstitutionoranyactofCongress,whichmayincludelawsuitsagainstthegovernmentregardinginfringementofcopyright, rightsrelatedtoprotectedplantvarieties,markworksandotherprotecteddesigns(U.S.Code28§1491).130 TheFederalCourtsImprovementActof1982,Pub.L.No.97-164,96Stat.25(1982)(codifiedasamendedinscatteredsectionsof28U.S.C.).131 TheseincludeappealsfromafinaldecisionofadistrictcourtrelatedtoplantvarietyinanycivilactionarisingunderthePlantVarietyProtection Act of 1970asper 28U.S.Code§1295(a)(1),whichalso includesany civil action inwhichapartyhasasserteda compulsory counterclaim arisingunderthePlantVarietyProtectionAct,appealsagainstadeclarationofopennesstoawideuseofaplantvarietyasper7U.S.Code§2404 inconjunctionwith7U.S.Code§2461,appealsagainstrefusalofapplicationforplantvarietyprotectionbythePlantVarietyProtectionOfficeas per7U.S.Code§2443 inconjunctionwith7U.S.Code§2461,appealsconcerningre-examinationofafteruseasper7U.S.Code§2501 in conjunctionwith7U.S.Code§2461,appealsagainstanorderoftheSecretaryofAgricultureconcerningfalsemarkingasper7U.S.Code§2568in conjunctionwith7U.S.Code§2461andappealsagainstadecisionoftheDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofColumbiainacivilactionagainsta SecretaryofAgricultureasper7U.S.Code§2462inconjunctionwith28U.S.Code§1295(a)(1)).132 28U.S.Code§1581inconjunctionwithSection515oftheTariffAct1930(U.S.Code19§1515);theCourtofInternationalTradewasestablished 28U.S.CodeChapter11.133 28U.S.Code§1295(a)(5).134 ibid.135 26U.S.Code§6213(a);28U.S.Code§1491.ForfurtherinformationseeGeraldAKafka,‘ChoiceOfForumInFederalCivilTaxLitigation(Part1)’ (ThePracticalTaxLawyer,Winter2011)<https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/3980-ChoiceOfForumInFederalCivilTaxLitigation-Part1-> accessed 23 September 2020.136 28U.S.Code§1254.137 RulesoftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedState,Rule10;‘CourtRoleAndStructure-SupremeCourt’(USCourts) <http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/SupremeCourt.aspx>accessed23September2020; ‘UnderstandingtheFederalCourts–AdministrativeOfficeoftheUSCourts’(USCourts) <https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/understanding-federal-courts.pdf>accessed23September2020,1.138 Rule 101(a) and Rule 1101 FRE.139 Rule26FRCP.140 TitleVFCPR.141 LawrenceK.Kolodney,‘Aguidetopatentlitigationinfederalcourt’(Fish&Richardson,2018) <https://www.slideshare.net/LarryKolodney/a-guidetopatentlitigationinfedcourt2016>accessed23September2020.142 Freer (n 1) 385.

UNITED

STATE

S


Districtcourtsadmitawidevarietyofevidence, includingwrittenevidence,oralwitnessstatements,evidenceinelectronicform,audio/videomaterialsandexpertevidence.Evidencemustberelevantinthe sense that it has any tendency to make an argument more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.143

2.3.1. Evidence in electronic form The FRE apply to electronic evidence in the same way they apply to more traditional forms of evidence. Importantly,theFRErequirethatevidencemustbesubmittedinanoriginalforminordertoprovecontentofawriting,recording,orphoto.144ItseemsthattheissueofwhatcanbeconsideredasanoriginalformofelectronicevidenceisfairlysettledintheUS.Thus,whiletherehavebeensomecaseswherepartiessoughttoavoidadmissionofcomputerprintouts,claimingthemtobemerecopiesoftheoriginalcomputerrecords,courtshavegenerallyrejectedthisargumentandadmittedtheprintoutsasoriginalrecordsandnot copies.145Infact,theFREexplicitlyaccordwiththisapproach,astheystatethatasfaraselectronicallystoredinformationisconcerned,an‘original’meansanyprintout,orotheroutputreadablebysight,ifitaccurately reflects the information.146Therefore,theFRErulesonprovidingoriginalsareratherlenient,astheystatethataccurateduplicatesareoriginalsforadmissibilitypurposes,147 summaries of voluminous materialsarealsoallowed,148 as well as duplicates of a hard drive.149

Apartfromtherequirementthatevidencemustbeintheiroriginalforms,anotherimportantrequirementisthat evidence must be authenticated.150 This is important in situations where one party provides evidence (including in an original form) and another party contests its authenticity.151Inthissituation,thedocumentwillneedtobeauthenticatedaccordingtotheFRErules.Essentially,thepartyofferingtheevidencemustdemonstrate that the evidence is what it is claimed to be.152Therehasbeenasignificantstruggleonbehalfof the judiciary as to when and how electronic evidence should be considered to have passed this hurdle.153 Authenticationhastraditionallybeenreferredtoasthe‘proofofauthorshiporpersonalconnectiontoawriting’.154Inthiscontext,theFREprovidesforanon-exhaustivelistofwaystoauthenticateevidence,whichisalsoapplicabletodigitalevidencesuchasemails,tweets,textmessages,socialmediapostings,blogs,and websites.155 One way of authentication is by a witness with personal knowledge that the item is what the proponent claims it is.156Thiscanbetheauthorofanemail,tweetortextmessage,ortheownerofthesocial media website.157 This is said to be the easiest way to authenticate digital evidence and the least likely to be challenged.158Alternatively,theFREreferstothedistinctivecharacteristicsoftheitemitself.159Inthisrespect,thecontent,substance,internalpatternsandotherdistinctivecharacteristicsoftheitemwouldbetakenasawholeunderthespecificcircumstances,andadecisionastotheauthenticityoftheitemwouldbemade.Forexample,whiledigital textmessagescanbeauthenticatedby the testimonyofawitnesswithpersonalknowledge,authenticationcanalsotakeplacebyvirtueofthedistinctivecharacteristicsoftheitem,includingcircumstantialevidencesuchastheauthor’sscreenname,customaryuseofemojioremoticons,theauthor’sknownphonenumber,thereferencetofactsthatarespecifictotheauthor,etc.160 Therefore,ifatextmessageissubmittedasevidence,thescreenwiththetextmessage,thenameand/orphonenumberofthepersonsendingthetextmessage,andthedateandtimethemessagewassentshould be clearly displayed.161 Another way of authentication is by an expert witness.162

143 Rule 401 FRE.144 ibid Rule 1002.145 R.vBellandBruce(1982),35O.R.(2d)164(computerprintoutsadmissibleunderbankrecordprovisionss.29ofCanadaEvidenceAct).146 Rule 1001(d) FRE.147 ibid Rule 1003.148 ibid Rule 1006.149 StatevMorris,No.04CA0036,04CA0036,2005WL356801,356801,at*2(Ohio.Ct.App.Feb.16,2005);BroderickvState,35S.W.3d67, (Tex. Ct. App. 2000).150 Rule 901(a) FRE.151 DanielCapra,‘AuthenticatingDigitalEvidence’69BaylorLawReview56.152 Rule 901(a) FRE.153 LorrainevMarkelAmericanInsuranceCo.,241F.R.D.534(D.Md.2007);AmericanBarAssociation,‘AuthenticatingDigitalEvidence’(ABA,29June2017) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_solo/2014/september-october/authenticating_digital_evidence/> accessed 23 September 2020.154 NicholasFLaRoccaJr,‘Authentication,Identification,andtheBestEvidenceRule’(1975)36LouisianaLawReview30.155 Rule 901(b) FRE.156 Rule 901 (b)(1) FRE.157 ‘AuthenticatingDigitalEvidence’(n153).158 ibid.159 Rule 901(b)(4) FRE.160 AmericanBarAssociation,‘AuthenticatingDigitalEvidenceatTrial’(ABA,27April2017) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/blt/2017/04/03_sozio/>accessed23September2020.161 ibid.162 Rule 901(b)(3) FRE.

UNITED

STATE

S


Forinstance,ifapersonalcomputerwasusedtoaccessfilesstoredonaspecificUSBflashdrive,typicallyaforensictechnicianwouldprovideaprintoutfromtheWindowsregistryinthepersonalcomputer’soperatingsystemindicatingthatacertainUSBflashdrivewasconnectedtothecomputeratagivendateandtime.163 The proponent party in this case would ordinarily present live testimony from the forensic technician to establish the authenticity of the printout. The proponent must provide reasonable written notice of the intenttooffertheprintoutathearingortrial,andmakethewrittencertificationandprintoutavailableforinspection. The opponent must then decide whether to object to such establishment of authenticity.164

Additionally,certainevidencecouldbeself-authenticatedprovidedthat theconditionssetout in theFREare fulfilled, for example, the evidence is available for inspectionor a pre-trial challenge.165 Among such evidenceare‘CertifiedRecordsGeneratedbyanElectronicProcessorSystem’166 (these can come in the form ofprintoutsfromwebpages,oradocumentretrievedfromfilesstoredinapersonalcomputer)and‘CertifiedDataCopiedfromanElectronicDevice,StorageMedium,orFile’.167 Commonly used storage devices like hard drives,flashdrives,andotherelectronicfilesarethebestfitforthiscategoryofevidence.Certifiedexpertsareabletodetermineifthe‘hashvalue’ofafileisidenticaltotheoriginal,skippingthenecessityforlivewitnesstestimony. A hash value is a number that is often represented as a sequence of characters and is produced byanalgorithmbaseduponthedigitalcontentsofadrive,medium,orfile. Ifthehashvaluesfortheoriginalandcopyaredifferent,thenthecopyisnotidenticaltotheoriginalone.Ifthehashvaluesfortheoriginalandcopyarethesame,itishighlyimprobablethattheoriginalandcopyarenotidentical.Thus,identicalhash values for the original and copy reliably attest to the fact that they are exact duplicates.168 Among the benefitsofself-authenticationofcertaintypesofelectronicdataisthefactthatpartiescansaveoncostsbyavoidingpaymentsforforensicexperts’travelandin-persontestimony.Moreover,theproceedingsarecertainly expedited as there is less court time spent on authentication of testimony.

2.3.2. ExpertsDuringthediscoverystageinpreparationforthetrialatthedistrictlevel,evidencecouldbeobtainedfromthird parties such as experts.169Atthisstage,thereisalsoapossibilityof‘expertdiscovery’,wherebyeachparty can learn about the expected testimony and opinion of the opponent’s experts. The experts must be ‘qualifiedbyknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducation’inarecognisedareaofexpertise.170 Expert witnessesaredividedintotwocategories:(a)specialknowledge/technicalexpertswhoprovideanalysisconcerning technicalmatters, in which lay persons are not specialised, and (b) damages assistancespecialists,whoaidthevaluationandcalculationofdamages inaparticularfield.Anexpert’sopinionis generally considered of equal value to other types of evidence.171Yet,muchdependsonthecaseathand. If thecase istechnicalandcomplicated, forexamplebecause it involvesapatentortrademarkinfringementrelatingtoaprofessionalfield,expertevidencewouldbeparticularlyimportantinordertounderstandthepatent itselfor therelevantpublic/market, respectively.Therefore,whendecidingonacase,ajudgeorjurycanaccept,rejectorgivewhateverweighttheydeemappropriatetothetestimonyand opinion of experts.172

An expert witness can be commissioned to testify and offer an opinion concerning technical matters relating to infringement, validity or financial matters related to damages.173 Specifically, an expert’stestimonyispermissibleasfarasitpertainstoquestionsoffact,notlaw.174Forexample,intrademarkinfringementcases,surveyevidenceisoftenpresentedonissuessuchasacquireddistinctiveness,generictrademarksandlikelihoodofconfusion.Therefore,experttestimonyfrommarketresearchexperts,whohaveconductedconsumersurveysregardingthemarksinquestion,willoftenbecrucial.175

163 AmericanBarAssociation,‘NewRulesforSelf-AuthenticatingElectronicEvidence’(ABA,22June2018) <https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/committees/trial-evidence/practice/2018/new-rules-electronic-evidence/> accessed 23 September 2020.164 ibid.165 Rule 902 FRE.166 ibid Rule 902(13).167 ibid Rule 902(14).168 ChristopherBMueller,LairdCKirkpatrickandLiesaRichter,FederalRulesofEvidence:WithAdvisoryCommitteeNotesandLegislativeHistory: 2019StatutorySupplement(WoltersKluwerLaw&Business2019)273.169 Atanappeallevel,includingtheCAFC,therearenowitnessesandthereisnopresentationofevidence.Atthispointlawyersforeachpartyorally arguethecasetothecourt.Theappellatecourtdoesnotdeterminewhathashappenedasthisistheroleofthetrial/districtcourt;itonlyhandles questionsoflawspecificallypleadedbeforeit.170 Rule 702 FRE.171 Rule26(a)(2)FRAP.172 ‘PatentlitigationintheUnitedStates:overview’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber6-623-0657.173 Rule 702 FRE.174 ‘ExpertLegalTestimony’[1984]97(3)HarvardLawReview797,798.175 JeromeGilson,‘ExpertsinTrademarkCases’[1982]8LITIG40.

UNITED

STATE

S


Questionsof law, on theother hand, pertain to the legal significanceattached to certain setsof factssuch as the interpretation of terms of a statute176orotherwritteninstrumentssuchasdeeds,contractsortariffs.177Forinstance,theSupremeCourtstatedthatwhileinpatentcasesanexpertcanexplain‘stateoftheart’byelaboratinguponthemeaningoftechnicaltermsusedintheclaim,expertscannotbeusedtoprove‘theproperorlegalconstructionofanyinstrumentinwriting.178 The latter would be construed as a questionoflawandthuswouldfallwithinthecompetenceofthecourt.Mixedquestionsoflawandfactare generally permissible.179Theserelatetoissuesinwhichtheconclusionisalegalone,butitmustbesupported through questions of fact.180Forexample, theassessmentofobviousnessofan invention isconsideredoverallaquestionoflaw,butitencompassesfactualfindingssuchasthescopeandcontentofthepriorart,thedifferencesbetweenthepriorartandtheclaimsatissue,thelevelofordinaryskillintheartwhentheinventionwasmade,andsecondaryindiciasuchascommercialsuccessandcopying.181 Expertwitnessescanprovidetestimonyonthesevariousfactualfindings,butmaynotultimatelydeterminewhethertheseleadtotheinventionbeinganobviousoneornot.Itfollowsthatthelinebetweenquestionsoffactandlawisadifficultonetodraw.Somescholarshavecontendedthatmixedquestionsoflawandfact,suchasobviousnessinpatentlaw,shouldbeconsideredaspurelyquestionsoffact.182 The distinction thoughisimportant,asfindingsoffactsaresubjecttoclearerrorreview,butanerroneousassessmentoflaw is subject to a review de novo.183Moreover,inthisprocess,thefederaljudgeexercisesagatekeepingfunction in light of Rule 702 FRE in determining the relevance and the reliability of a proposed expert testimony;thisisalsocalledaDaubertmotionfollowingtheleadingcaseonthispoint.184

2.3.3. Power of the court to appoint an expert unilaterallyThe court may appoint any expert that the parties agree upon or any of its own choosing unilaterally.185

However,thecourtsrarelyexercisetheirprerogativetoappointexpertsunilaterally,asthecourtsarereluctanttointerferewiththeadversarialnatureofthesystem.Therefore,theyavoidtakingtheriskofinfluencingthejury,whichmaytaketheviewthatthecourt-appointedexpertisauthoritativeandimpartial.186

Nevertheless,theopinionamongdifferentcourtswithrespecttoappointingexpertsvaries.Forexample,the CAFC in a case concerning patents stated that appointing court experts unilaterally should be done only in very rare and compelling situations.187Atthesametime,alsoinapatentcase,theDistrictCourtofCaliforniaappointedexperts,astheparties’experts‘understandably’becametechnicaladvocatesfortheirrespective causes.188

2.4. Preliminary injunctive relief in IP casesTheFRCPprovidefortwotypesofpreliminaryinjunctiverelief:preliminaryinjunctions(‘PIs’)andtemporaryrestrainingorders(‘TROs’).189Grantingapreliminaryinjunctivereliefinmostcasesrequiresahearing.PIsorderadefendanttoperform,orrefrainfromperforming,anactionuntilthefinaljudgement.Inthatsense,the injunctionsdonothaveanysetduration,but insteadgrantan injunctive reliefpending theoutcomeof a decision on the merits of the underlying complaint.190ThedecisionregardingthegrantofIPsortherefusalofsuchgrantcanbeappealedbeforethefinaldecision.191ArespondentmayalsofileamotionforreconsiderationofthegrantedPIs.192Forthemotiontosucceed,themovantmustpresentnewlydiscoveredevidence,arguethatthecourtthatgrantedthePIscommittedaclearerror,contendthatthedecisionmusthavebeenmanifestlyunjust,ortheremusthavebeenaninterveningchangeincontrollinglaw.193

176 ‘ExpertLegalTestimony’(n174),799.177 TevaPharm.UnitedStatesInc.vSandoz135S.Ct.831(2015);astocontracts,seeMashburnvWilson,701P.2d67(Colo.App.1984).178 Teva(n177)837;WinansvNewYork&ErieR.Co.,21How.88,100–101,16L.Ed.68(1859).179 ‘ExpertLegalTestimony’(n174).180 HowardG.Pollack,‘Theadmissibilityandutilityofexpertlegaltestimonyinpatentlitigation’[1992]IDEA:TheJournalofLawandTechnology361,364.181 GrahamvJohnDeereCo.,383U.S.1(1966).182 TedL.Field,‘ObviousnessasFact:TheIssueofObviousnessinPatentLawShouldBeaQuestionofFactReviewedwithAppropriateDeference’ [2017]27FordhamIntellPropMedia&EntLJ555,574.183 Rule52(a)FRCP.184 DaubertvMerrellDowPharm.,Inc.,509U.S.579(1993).185 Rule 706 FRE.186 ‘ExpertQ&A:TrendsinDaubertChallenges’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber0-588-1186.187 MonolithicPowerSys.,Inc.vO2MicroInt’lLtd.,558F.3d1341,1348(Fed.Cir.2009).188 NECCorp.vHyundaiElecs.Indus.Co.,30F.Supp.2d546,554(E.D.Va.1998).189 Rule65FRCP.190 U.S.PhilipsCorp.vKBCBank,590F.3d1091,1093-94(9thCir.2010).191 28U.S.Code§1292(a)(1).192 Rule59(e)FRCP.193 SchoolDist.No.1JvACandS,Inc.,5F.3d1255,1263(9thCir.1993);SmithvClarkCty.Sch.Dist.,727F.3d950,955(9thCir.2013)

UNITED

STATE

S


Alternatively,TROspreservethestatusquountilthecourtdecideswhethertoissueaPI.194 This relief can onlyberequestedinconjunctionwithaPI.GrantingaTROusuallyrequiresahearing.However,unlikePIs,TROs can be issued ex parte.195ATROwillbegrantedwithoutnoticeonlyifspecificfactsinanaffidavitoraverifiedcomplaintclearlyshowthatimmediateandirreparableinjury,loss,ordamagewillresulttothemovantbeforetheadversepartycanbeheard.Furthermore,themovant’sattorneymustcertifyinwritingany efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.196 Inpractice,courtsareextremely reluctant to grant TROs ex parte,andwillonlydosowhennoticetotheadversepartyisimpossiblebecausetheparty’sidentityisunknown,itcannotbelocatedintimeforahearing,orwhensuchanoticewould make further prosecution of the action fruitless.197Typically,aTROexpires14daysaftertheorderisentered.Thesecanbeextendedbyanother14daysbyorderofthecourt,orlongerasperarequestbytheparties.198 The decision to grant a TRO or a refusal in such a grant is typically not appealable.199

2.4.1. Grounds for granting preliminary injunctive reliefGenerally,thegroundsforgrantingbothtypesofpreliminaryinjunctivereliefsarethesame.Thefollowingfourrequirementsmustbesatisfied:(i)theplaintiffhasdemonstratedareasonablelikelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsofthecase;(ii)theplaintiffwillbeirreparablyharmediftheinjunctionisnotissued;(iii)thethreatenedharmtotheplaintiffoutweighstheharmtheinjunctionmayinflictonthedefendant;and(iv)theinjunction will serve the public interest.200Allcircuitcourtshaveadoptedthesameconditions,orconditionsthat are substantially identical.201

In terms of the substance of these conditions, the courts construe themas follows.When arguing thelikelihoodofsuccessrequirement,themovantneednotdemonstrate‘substantiallikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits, but rather the lesser standardof demonstrating that success ismore likely thannot’.202 For example,inthecontextofpatentinfringementlitigation,inordertodemonstratealikelihoodofsuccessonthemerits,theplaintiffmustshowthatheorshewilllikelyprovethatthedefendantinfringesthepatent,and that the patent will likely withstand the challenges to the validity and enforceability.203 On the other hand,ifthedefendantraisesasubstantialquestionconcerningeitherofthesematters,i.e.assertsthatthepatentee’sposition‘lackssubstantialmerits’,thePIshouldnotbeissued.204

Further,itisoftensaidthatirreparableharmisthemostimportantprerequisiteforobtainingapreliminaryinjunctive relief.205Theharminquestionmustnotberemoteorspeculative,butactualandimminent,meaningthat there must be more than an unfounded fear of harm on the part of the applicant.206 An important aspect is that a preliminary injunctive relief would typically not be issued if the harm can be compensated through monetary damages.207 Inthesecases,theharmwouldnotqualifyas irreparable.208 Examples from trade mark jurisprudence on what may qualify as irreparable harm include showing likelihood of confusion209 or an immediate loss of reputation.210WhilethegroundsforissuingaTROarethesameasthegroundsforaPI,211 when granting TROs there is a particular emphasis on the factor of irreparable harm. This is because at the stage of TROs what is crucial is whether the claim as pleaded in the complaint is substantial and clearly statesacauseofactionjustifyingsomerelief,andnotwhetheritseemslikelythattheplaintiffwillultimatelywin.Inessence,thecourthereisconcernedwithwhetherthereisarealemergency,andhowseverelytheother party will be affected by being restrained even for a brief period of time.212

194 GarrettvCityofEscondido,465F.Supp.2d1043,1048-49(S.D.Cal.2006).195 Rule65(b)(1)FRCP.196 ibid.197 ‘PreliminaryInjunctiveRelief:ProcedureforObtainingPreliminaryInjunctiveRelief(Federal)’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber3-520-9724.198 Rule65(b)(2)FRCP.199 VuittonvWhite,945F.2d569,573(3dCir.1991).200 Sevenofthethirteencircuitcourtshaveexpresslystatedso,whiletheresttacitlyacceptso.SeeScottsCo.vUnitedIndus. Corp.,315F.3d264,271(4thCir.2002).201 ‘PreliminaryInjunctiveRelief:ProcedureforObtainingPreliminaryInjunctiveRelief(Federal)’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber3-520-9724.202 RevisionMilitary,Inc.vBalboaMfg.Co.,700F.3d524,526(Fed.Cir.2012).203 Amazon.comvBarnesandnoble.com,Inc.,239F.3d1343,1350;Genentech,Inc.vNovoNordisk,A/S108F.3d1361,1364.204 ibid.205 Earthweb,Inc.vSchlack,No.99-cv-9302,2000WL1093320,at*2(2dCir.May18,2000).206 JanveyvAlguire,647F.3d585,600(5thCir.2011);FortvAm.Fed’nofState,Cnty.&Mun.Emps.,AFL-CIO,375F.App’x109,111(2dCir.2010).207 ThomasJSpeissandStephenMLevine,‘AnAnalysisoftheFactorsThatDetermineWhenandHowtoResolveaTrademarkDispute’ (2004)11RichmondJournalofLaw&Technology45.208 BoivinvUSAirways,Inc.,297F.Supp.2d110,118-19(D.D.C.2003),209 ThomasMcCarthy,McCarthyonTrademarksandUnfairCompetition(4thed.,2005)30:30.210 RodeoCollection,Ltd.vW.Seventh,812F.2d1215,1220(9thCir.1987).211 WhiletheCAFChasnotexpresslyruledonwhetherthegroundsforTROsarethesameasthoseforPI,theCourtofFederalClaimshasheldso.(See SafeguardBaseOperations,LLCvUnitedStates,140Fed.Cl.670,686(2018);WallaceAssetMgmt.,LLCvUnitedStates,125Fed.Cl.718,732(2016)).212 BernardJ.Nussbaum,‘TemporaryRestrainingOrdersandPreliminaryInjunctions-TheFederalPractice’[1972]26SwLJ265,271.

UNITED

STATE

S


As for the balancing between the harm inflicted on the plaintiff against the harm suffered by the defendant asaresultofaninjunctiverelief,thecourtsusuallyassesssuchaspectsasthesizeandstrengthoftheparties,213 the risk that the injunctionwould cause the defendant to go out of business,214 whether the defendant has made substantial investment in the activity sought to be enjoined by the plaintiff (such asthesaleofallegedlyinfringingproducts),215 or whether the injunction would interfere with a defendant corporation making necessary or routine decisions regarding the operation of their business.216

Finally,thepublicinterestrequirementisoftenweighedequallyforbothsides,217 or has little weight in the assessment.218 This factor has nonetheless been emphasised by the Supreme Court.219 Three structural elementsformingthepublicinterestfactorinclude:thenatureofthepartiesinvolved,underlyingcauseofaction and the scope of the proposed injunction.220

Variousapproachestowardsthebalancingofthefourrequirementshavebeenadopted.TheCAFCappliesthesequentialtest,wherebyallfourneedtobepresent.221Othercourtshaveappliedthethresholdtest,inwhichanapplicantonlyneedstoprovethefirsttwofactorsandthecourtwouldthenweightheseagainstthelattertwo,222 or the sliding-scale test in which all four factors are balanced against one another.223

2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuitIngeneral,themotionforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefhastocoincidewithorbeprecededbythefilingof the complaint commencing the action.224However,itmaybeacceptedbythecourtbeforehandwhentheearlyfilingwasduetothe‘exigenciesoftime’225andwherethecontentsofthedocumentsfiledweresufficient to commence the action.226 Whether the filing of the complaint is an absolute prerequisitedepends on the local rules binding the court in question,227 given that preliminary injunctive reliefs,incaseswhere theyareapplied forbefore thecomplaint isfiled,mustbebrought to thecourt that iscompetent to deal with the main complaint.228

2.4.3. Cross-undertakingIfapreliminaryinjunctivereliefisgranted,theplaintiffwillusuallyhavetopostabondforsecuringanycostsordamagesthatthedefendantcouldsufferincasethereliefislaterprovedunfounded,i.e.improperlygranted.229 Thiskindofcross-undertakingintheUSiscalled‘injunctionbond’.Therehavebeendifferentinterpretationsregarding its nature (mandatory or optional). Both the Copyright Act and the Trademark Act state that a preliminary injunctive reliefmaybegranted, ‘on such termsas [the court]maydeem reasonable.’230 The situation is the same as far as patents are concerned.231Itmustbenotedthoughthatinpatentinfringementcases a bond would sometimes be required from the defendant as an alternative to the injunction.232

213 FalconStainless,Inc.vRinoCos.,2008WL5179037,9(C.D.Cal.Dec.9,2008).214 Va.CarolinaTools,Inc.vInt’lToolSupply,Inc.,984F.2d113,120(4thCir.1993);CDIEnergyServs.vW.RiverPumps,Inc.,567F.3d398,403(8thCir.2009).215 CaterpillarInc.vWaltDisneyCo.,287F.Supp.2d913,922-23(C.D.Ill.2003)).216 KitazatovBlackDiamondHospitalityInvs.,LLC,655F.Supp.2d1139,1148-49(D.Haw.2009).217 BernhardtvCnty.ofLosAngeles,339F.3d920,932(9thCir.2003).218 MasonvMinn.StateHighSch.League,2003WL23109685,3(D.Minn.Dec.30,2003).219 WintervNat.Res.Def.Council,Inc.,555U.S.7,20(2008).220 MDMoore,‘ThePreliminaryInjunctionStandard:UnderstandingthePublicInterestFactor’[2019](117)MichLRev939,accordingtowhichifone ofthepartiesisapublicbody,thepublicinterestismorelikelytobetakenintoconsideration;wherebothpartiesarepublicbodies,courtsare lesslikelytoengageinrigorouspublicinterestanalysis;however,wheretherearethirdpartieslikelytobeaffected,thepolicyinterestbecomes more importantagain.Amore rigidassessmentofpublic interest ismore likely if theunderlyingcauseofaction isofpublic importance, for instance,ifitinvolvesconstitutionalconsiderations,orwherethemotionsarebasedonlegislationthatinvolvespublicinterestissues(suchasthe environment).Astothescope,itisnotedthatthebroadertheinjunctionthemoreextensivetheinclusionofpublicinterest.221 JackGuttman,Inc.vKopykakeEnter.,Inc.,302F.3d1352,1356(Fed.Cir.2002).222 ReillyvCityofHarrisburg858F.3d173,177–79(3dCir.2017).223 RachelA.Weisshaar,‘HazyShadesofWinter:ResolvingtheCircuitSplitoverPreliminaryInjunctions’[2012]65Vand.L.Rev1011,1018;S.Glazer’s Distribs.ofOhio,LLCvGreatLakesBrewingCo.,860F.3d844,849(6thCir.2017).224 LeeH.Rosenthal,DavidF.Levi,JohnK.Rabiej,FederalCivilProcedureManual,JurisPublishing,2015,419;FRCP,rule65(a)(2); StewartvUnitedStatesImmigration&NaturalizationServ,762F.2d193,198(2dCir.1985).225 ‘PreliminaryInjunctiveRelief:ProcedureforObtainingPreliminaryInjunctiveRelief(Federal)’(n201).226 StudebakerCorp.vGittlin360F.2d692[1966],(here,thefirstdocumentfiledwiththecourtwas “anordertoshowcause,supportedbyanextensiveaffidavit”,andtheactualcomplaintwasfiledthreedayslater).227 ‘PreliminaryInjunctiveRelief:ProcedureforObtainingPreliminaryInjunctiveRelief(Federal)’(n201).228 Inaccordancewith28U.S.Code§1391(b).229 Rule65(c)FRCP.230 Section502oftheCopyrightAct1976,andSection1116(a)oftheTrademarkAct;Orantes-HernandezvSmith,541F.Supp.351(C.D.Cal.1982), where it was held that posting a bond was not mandatory.231 PaulMarotta,‘TheInjunctionBondinHighTechnologyLitigation:TheNeedforReform’[1988]4(1)SantaClaraHighTechnologyLawJournal24.232 WestinghouseAir-BrakeCo.vBurtonStockCarCo.,77F.301(IstCir.1896).

UNITED

STATE

S


Itappearsthatthecourtsarevestedwithawidediscretionastowhetherornottoobligethepartytopostabond,233 as well as the amount of the bond itself.234Generally,federalcourtshaverecognisedtwoparticularcircumstances in which the requirement to post a bond may hinder public interest litigants’ access to court:theseareclaimsbroughtbyindigenouslitigantsandcasesbroughtbycitizengroupsenforcingtheNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct.235Insuchcases,courtshavedecidednottorequirebonds.Thefinancialresourcesof the litigant havebeenconsideredasa relevant factor in cases related to indigents,wherecourtshavestressed that theapplicant isapoor individual,unable to furnishsecurityand thusabondwas not required.236 Such considerations stemmed from the court’s equitable discretion rather than any statutory basis.237Overall,noSupremeCourtrulingexistsonthismatter,sothepracticesvarysignificantlyamong courts.238 One of the factors taken into account when determining whether to issue a bond includes the likelihood of harm to the party enjoined.239Inanothercase,wherethedefendantdidnotrequestabond,no bond was required.240InasituationinwhichthePIcausesthedefendanttochangeitsname,marketingandrelatedbusinessactivities,courtsgenerallyrequireasubstantialbondtobeposted.241

2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiativeA court that granted a preliminary injunctive relief may dissolve or modify the relief where the grounds on whichitwasgrantedceasedtoexist(thefourcriteriamentionedabovecannolongerbeestablished),242 or where other changes in the law occurred.243Moreover,thereliefcanbedissolvedwheretheprospectiveapplicationthereofisnolongerequitable,244andmodifiedwherethecourtneedstoensurethatthemeasuregranted fully vindicates the rights accorded by the underlying judgement.245

Whetherthemotionofapartyisanabsoluteprerequisitefortheamendmentorcancellationofthereliefdependsonthetypeofrelief,timeofthedecision,thetypeofprovisiongivinggroundstotheamendmentorcancellation,andincertaininstancesonthejurisprudenceofthecircuitcourtthatdecidesontherelief.Forexample,underRule59(d)FRCP,within28days from the issuingofanordergrantingapreliminaryinjunction,thecourt,onitsown,mayorderanewtrialforanyreasonenlistedintheFRCPthatcanbeinvokedby a party in a motion for a new trial.246Inaddition,aftergivinganoticetothepartiesandanopportunitytobeheard,thecourtmaygrantatimelymotionforanewtrialforareasonnotstatedinthemotion.Ineitherevent,thecourtmustspecifythereasonsinitsorder.247Apartfromthat,underRule65(b)(3),thecourtmustdissolveaTRO,evenabsentamotion,wherethemovanthasnotproceededwiththemotiononahearingwhichwassetfollowingthegrantoftheinjunction.AsregardstherevocationormodificationofpreliminaryinjunctionsunderRule60(b)FRCP,despitethefactthattheliteralwordingoftheprovisionrequiresamotionofaparty,certaincircuitshaveallowedthecourtstovacateormodifypreliminaryinjunctionssuasponte;248 in this instance the courts are required to notify the parties beforehand.249Finally,inrelationtorevocationofapreliminaryinjunctivereliefunderRule65(b)(4),amotionofonepartyisalwaysrequired.

233 AmericanCodeCo.vBensinger,282F.2d829(2dCir.1922);NorthwesternBellTel.Co.vBedcoofMinnesota,Inc.,501F.Supp.299,304(D.Minn.1980)234 HoechstDiafoilCo.vNanYaPlasticsCorp.,174F.3d411,421(4thCir.1999);MoltanCo.vEagle–PicherIndus.,Inc.,55F.3d1171,1176(6thCir.1995).235 ReinaCalderon,‘BondRequirementsunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedure65(c):AnEmergingEquitableExemptionforPublicInterestLitigants’ (1985)13BostonCollegeEnvironmentalAffairsLawReview125,136,wheresherefers,amongothercases,toDennyvHealthandSocialServs.Bd., 285F.Supp.526,527(E.D.Wis.1968);BassvRichardson,338F.Supp.478(S.D.N.Y.1971);BartelsvBiernat,405F.Supp.1012(E.D.Wis.1975); WestVirginiaHighlandsConservancyv IslandCreekCoalCo.,441F.2d232(4thCir.1971);NaturalResourcesDefenseCouncil Inc.,vMorton, 337F.Supp.167(D.D.C.1971),458F.2d827(D.C.Cir.1972).236 DennyvHealthandSocialServs.Bd(n232).237 Calderon (n 235).238 Therearealsovastdifferencesbetween thestateand federalcourtpractice, forexample in Illinoisa ‘party’s limitedfinancial resourcescan providegoodcauseforrequiringnobond’(SavethePrairieSociety,338Ill.App.3dat804);SeealsoGoldvZiffCommunicationsCo.,196Ill. App.3d425,436(1stDist.1989),whichstatesthatwherethe‘impositionof[a]bondwouldbeanunduehardshiponplaintiff inapreliminary injunction,itisnotanabuseofdiscretionnottoordertheimpositionofbond’.239 InternationalControlCorporationvVesco&Co.,Inc.490F.2d1334,1356(2dCir.1974),cert.denied,417U.S.932(1974),cert.denied,434U.S.1014(1978).240 U.S.vOnan,190F.2d1,7(8thCir.1951),cert.denied,342U.S.869(1951).241 MortonDenlow,‘PreliminaryInjunctions:LookbeforeYouLeap’(2002)28LITIG8.242 KnappShoes,Inc.vSylvaniaShoeMfg.Corp.,15F.3d1222,1225(1stCir.1994).243 SalazarvBuono,559U.S.700(2010).244 Rule60(b)FRCP;Transportation,Inc.vMayflowerServ,Inc.769F.2d952,954(4thCir.1985).245 Transportation,954;UnitedStatesvUnitedShoeCorp.,391U.S.244,248-49.246 Rule59(d)FRCP.AccordingtoRule59(a)FRCPthemotionofapartymayinvoke:A)afterajurytrial,anyreasonforwhichanewtrialhasheretofore beengrantedinanactionatlawinfederalcourt;orB)afteranonjurytrial,anyreasonforwhicharehearinghasheretoforebeengrantedinasuit in equity in federal court.247 ibid.248 Dr.JoseS.Belaval,Inc.vPerez-Perdomo,465F.3d33,37(2006),andthejurisprudencecitedtherein.249 MoorevTangipahoaParishSchool864F.3d401(2017).

UNITED

STATE

S


2.5. Security for costsThepurposeofthesecurityforcostsistoprotecttherightsof‘theappelleesbroughtintoappealscourtsby such appellants’.250At thedistrict level, the lawdoesnotprovideapossibility to requestsecurity forcosts.251Hence,securityforcostsisavailableattheappellatelevelonly.252However,asthenoticeofappealmustbefiledwiththedistrictcourt,itisthedistrictcourtthatdecidesthequestionofsecurityforcostsforthepurposeoftheappealproceedingsthatwillfollow.Inparticular,‘[i]nacivilcase,thedistrictcourtmayrequireanappellanttofileabondorprovideothersecurityinanyformandamountnecessarytoensurepayment of costs on appeal.’253Thus,uponreceivinganoticefromthedistrictclerk,respondentshavetheopportunity to ask the district court for security for costs with regard to the upcoming appeal. The district court decision in this respect can be further appealed to the circuit courts.254

Asforthefactorstakenintoaccountwhendeterminingthisissue,thepracticevarieswidely,asthecourtsare vested with wide discretion.255 While the practice has not been entirely harmonised among courts,financialconsiderationsseemtoplayanimportantroleindeterminingwhetherornottoissueabond.256 Inessence,ifthedistrictcourtidentifiesactualfinancialhardshiponthepartoftheappellantthatwouldpreventhimorherfrompursuingtheappeal,thebondwouldnotbedemanded.257Nonetheless,theappelleemustprovidethecourtwithsomedocumentationcertifyingthatthefinancialhardshipisindeedpresent.258 Inaddition tofinancialhardship,whendecidingwhether to require thebond thecourtsassessalso theriskofnon-paymentintheeventthattheappellantslosetheirappeal,anypreviousbadfaithorvexatiousconductonthepartoftheappellants,andthelikelymeritsoftheappeal.259

Asfortheactualamountofthebond,districtcourtsmaysettheamounttocoverallcostslistedinRule39oftheFRAP,includingthepreparationandtransmissionoftherecord,thereporter’stranscript,premiumspaidforbondsandthefilingfee.260Inaddition,whilesomecircuits(theFirst,Second,Sixth,NinthandEleventh)alsoaddtothisamounttheattorney’sfees,theCAFCandtheThirdCircuitdonot.261Finally,certaindistrictcourtsinterpretRule7oftheFRAPsoastoassumediscretiontogranttheso-called‘appealbond’,whichisimposedagainsttheobjectorsappealingagainstfinalsettlementsinclassactions,duetothefactthattheappealstaystheentryofthefinaljudgementandthepaymenttoallclassmembers;thistypeofbondcoversalsocostsnotenumeratedinRule39oftheFRAP,suchassettlementadministrationcosts.262

2.6. Cassation in small value claimsThereisnospecialprocedureforsmallvalueIP-relatedclaimsintheUSfederalcourts.TheSupremeCourtgenerallyadmitscassations,madeintheformoftheso-calledwritofcertiorari,irrespectiveofthevalueofthelawsuit,onlyifthecaseinquestionhasnationalsignificance,mayleadtoharmonisingofconflictingdecisionsinthefederalcircuitcourts,and/orcouldhaveprecedentialvalue.263

250 AdsanivMiller139F.3d67(1998).251 ThisisbecauseintheUS,costsarenotawardedinthefirstinstance.Thisisdifferenttotheappellateproceedings,wheretheappelleemayclaim costsuponwinningasperU.S.Code28§1912.Securityforcostsisanimportantaspectatthecircuitlevelas‘intheUnitedStates,wherelegalaid isnotgenerallyavailable,appealsprovideopportunityforwealthypartiestopreventpoorpartiesfromeversucceedingtorightsfoundinfirst instance.’(SeemoreatRobertMBelden,‘ProtectingWinners:WhyFRAP7BondsShouldIncludeAttorneyFeesNote’(2015)10CornellLawReview.)252 Rule3FRAP.253 Rule7FRAP.254 TennillevWesternUnionCo.,No.13-1378(10thCir.2014).255 JohnA.Gliedman,‘AccesstoFederalCourtsandSecurityforCostsandFees’[2000]74(4)StJohn’sLawReview961.256 FordecisionsoncircuitcourtlevelconsiderAzizianvFederated499F.3d950,961(9thCir.2007),regardingtheattorneyfeestobeincludedas part of the bond, where financial hardship may indicate that a party’s right to appeal has been unduly burdened; Int’l. Floor Crafts, Inc.vDziemit420Fed.Appx.6,19(1stCir.2011).Fordecisionsondistrictcourtlevel,considerFourthDistrictSkyCable,LLCvColey(CivilAction No.5:11cv00048(W.D.Va.Jan.30,2017),aswellasWolfchildvRedwoodCnty.112F.Supp.3d866,879(D.Minn.2015),wheretheappellant’s financialabilitytopostabondtogetherwiththeriskthattheappellantwouldnotpayappellee’scostsiftheappealloseswereamongsomeofthe factors taken into account when the court exercised its discretion.257 Adsani (n 250).258 ibid.259 AlexKozinskiandJohnKRabiej,FederalAppellateProcedureManual(JurisPublishing,Inc2014),65;NoatexCorp.vKingsConst.ofHouston, 732F.3d479(2013);DenningsvClearwireCorp.928F.Supp.2d1270(W.D.Wash.2013).260 KozinskiandRabiej(n259)65.261 ibid.262 ibid 66.263 UnitedStatesCourts,‘SupremeCourtProcedures’,availableat <https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1> accessed 23 September 2020.

UNITED

STATE

S


PART II – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – UK


1.1. Structure of the judicial system and the IP courtsThespecialisedIPjudiciaryintheUKcomprisesthePatentsCourt,theIntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourt(the‘IPEC’),andthegeneralChanceryDivisionoftheHighCourt(the‘generalChanceryDivision’).264 All of theaforementionedcourtsarepartsoftheHighCourtandmaydealwithalltypesofIPdisputes.AllocationandtransferofIPdisputesbetweenthemdependsonthetypeofIPrightinquestion,thevalueoftheclaimandthecomplexityofthedispute.ThePatentsCourtandthegeneralChanceryDivisiondealwithcomplexclaims of greater value in the so-called multi-track.265AclaimallocatedtotheIPECmayeitherbedealtwithbyanenterprisejudge–themainjudgeofthecourt–inthemulti-track,orbyadistrictjudgeinasmallclaimtrack,whichallowsformoreefficientconclusionofproceedings.266Inaddition,lesscomplexdisputesconcerningcertaintypesofIPrightsmaybeconsideredbytendesignatedCountyCourthearingcentresin the multi-track.267AppealsagainstjudgementsissuedbythePatentsCourt,theIPEC,268 and the general ChanceryDivision are generally submitted to the Court of Appeal.269 As amatter of exception, appealsagainstthedecisionsofadistrictjudgeintheIPECsmallclaimstrackmustbebroughttotheenterprisejudge, i.e.a judgeof the IPECwhohearsclaims inthemulti-track.Whilesuchappealsmustbebroughtwithinthesamecourtoffirstinstance,certainmeasureswereintroducedtokeeptheinstancesseparate.Inparticular,thejurisdictionofthedistrictandenterprisejudgesareclearlydefined.270Moreover,thejudgesarelocatedindifferentbuildings:theenterprisejudgehearscasesintheRollsBuildinginLondon,andthesmallclaimstrackcasesareheardintheThomasMoreBuildinginLondon.271TherearenospecialisedIPappealcourtsorIPchamberswithintheCourtofAppealortheSupremeCourt.Nonetheless,judgeswhohearIPappealsaretypicallyhighlyexperiencedinsuchmatters.272 Appeals against the decisions of the CountyCourthearingcentreslietotheHighCourt.273

264 HMCourts&Tribunalsservice,‘ChanceryGuide’(Govuk,February2020) <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/869071/chancery-guide-eng.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020.265 Rule63.1(3)oftheCivilProcedureRules(CPR).266 ibid Rules 63.1(3) and 63.27.267 TheCountyCourtisthemainfirstinstanceforuminrelationtosmallcivil,i.e.contractandtort,claims(Section15oftheCountyCourtAct1984). FormoreinformationontheCountyCourtseeCourtsandTribunalsJudiciary,‘CountyCourt’, <https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/county-court/>,accessed23September2020.268 ThiswillbethecaseforjudgementsofIPEC’smulti-track.ForappealsregardingdecisionsofIPEC’ssmallclaimstrackseebelowandSection2.6.269 Exceptionally,inparticularlyimportantcases,appealscanbebroughtdirectlytotheSupremeCourt(alsocalled‘leapfrogappeal’). For more detail see Section 2.6.270 Rule63.19(2)CPR,accordingtowhichunlessthecourtordersotherwisethedistrictjudgesdealwitha)allocationofclaimstothesmallclaims trackormulti-track;b) claimsallocated to thesmall claims track; andc) all proceedings for theenforcementof anyfinancial elementof an IntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourtjudgment.Ontheotherhand,theenterprisejudgesdealwithalltheothercases.271 HMCourts&TribunalsService,‘TheIntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourtGuide’, <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/823201/intellectual-property-enterprise-guide.pdf>, accessed 23 September 2020.272 FurtherdetailonthisinSection1.2.andSection2.1CompositionofthecourtinIPcases.273 Paragraph3.5PD52A.

UNITED

KINGDOM


Certain types of IP-related disputesmay be considered by the Copyright Tribunal.274 Appeals from the decisionsofthetribunalonanypointoflawcanbebroughttotheHighCourt.275Inpractice,however,itisunusual for a decision to be successfully appealed.276FurtherappealsarepossibletotheCourtofAppeal,and thereafter to the Supreme Court.277

In addition, certainpatent andunregistereddesigndisputescanalsobe consideredby theComptrollerGeneralofPatents,DesignsandTradeMarks,278 based on special statutory provisions.279Ingeneral,decisionsoftheComptrollermaybeappealedagainsttotheHighCourtinrelationtopatents,280andtotheHighCourtortheso-called‘appointedpersons’281inrelationtotrademarksandregisteredandunregistereddesigns,282 andtothePlantVarietiesandSeedsTribunalinrelationtoplantvarieties.283 There are no specialised courts ofanyformforcriminalIPcases.

1.2. Criteria for selection of judgesIn the UK, there are no IP-specific selection criteria for a candidate for the position of an IP judge.284 Nonetheless,while IPexperience isnot formally required, it is taken intoaccountwhenacandidate forthepositionofan IP judge is considered.285 The selection of judges is the responsibility of the Judicial Appointment Commission, and is based on an open competition.286 Following the competition the Commission recommends candidates for appointment.287 The appointments are made by the queen upon the advice of the Lord Chancellor.

Aswasalreadymentioned,whilethelawdoesnotformallyrequirethecandidateforanIPjudgetopossessspecialised IP-related knowledge or experience, in the course of the recruitment process the JudicialAppointment Commission may impose informal requirements whereby the appointment of IP judgesis contingent on such knowledge and experience. Some IP judges also possess a scientific/technicalbackground.Whilethereisnoformalrequirementthatjudgesmusthavesuchabackground,inpracticeitmayproveessential.ThatisbecausecasesinthePatentsCourtarecategorisedaccordingtohowtechnicaltheirsubjectmatterisonascaleof1-5,andtypicallyjudgeswhositoncategory4and5casesmusthavesciencedegreesorbe ‘suitablyqualifieddeputyHighCourt judges’.288Asa result,onlyspecially trainedjudgesofthePatentsCourtordeputyHighCourtjudgesmayhearcasesinvolvingtechnicalknowledge.

274 The Copyright Tribunal is an administrative body that resolves commercial licensing disputes between copyright owners or collecting societies and the copyright material users. The chairman of the Copyright Tribunal and deputy chairmen are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. On the otherhand,thelaymembersoftheTribunalareappointedbytheSecretaryofStateforBusiness,InnovationandSkills(Sections145and146of theCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988(‘CDPA’)).WhiletheCopyrightTribunalisnotinstitutionallylinkedtoanyoftheIPcourts(ChVIIICDPA), itschairman,JudgeHacon,isalsothepresidingjudgeoftheIPEC,andtheTribunal’ssecretaryisastaffmemberoftheUKIntellectualProperty Office.However,thatdoesnotaffecttheimpartialityoftheTribunal,asitsdecisionsareappealedtothegeneralChanceryDivision,ratherthan totheIPEC(Halsbury’sLawsofEngland/Copyright(Volume23(2016))/5.TheCopyrightTribunal/(12)Appeals/1099.Appealtothecourtonapointoflaw).275 Section152(1)CDPA.276 CSCMediaGroupvVideoPerformance[2011]EWCACiv650,[2011]AllER(D)273(May).277 See Section 2.6.278 In theUK, theComptrollerGeneral of Patents,Designs andTradeMarks is the sole public authority responsible for the operation of theUK IntellectualPropertyOfficeandsupervisingthequalityofitsaccountingandfinancialreporting.TheComptrollerGeneralisresponsibleforthe decisions issuedunder thePatentsAct1977 (Section130of thePatentsAct1977)and thePlantVarietiesAct1997 (Section45of thePlant VarietiesAct1977),andinhiscapacityastrademarksregistrar(Section62oftheTradeMarksAct1994)andregistereddesignsregistrar(Section 44(1)oftheRegisteredDesignsAct1949),forthedecisionsconcerningtrademarksandregistereddesignsrespectively.Inthisreport,containing excerptsfromvariousstatutes,thesameauthority,i.e.theComptrollerGeneral,isreferredtobothasa‘ComptrollerGeneral’and‘theregistrar’.279 See,forinstance,Section61ofthePatentsAct1977(contractualauthorisationforthecomptrollertoconsiderinfringementdisputesbetween thepatentproprietorandanotherperson),andSections72and73ofthePatentsAct1977(statutoryauthorisationtorevokepatentsonapplication or on the comptroller’s own initiative). 280 Section97ofthePatentsAct1977.281 In particular, persons appointed for the specific purpose of deciding appeals from the decision of the Comptroller under Section 27A(1) oftheRegisteredDesignsAct1949andSection76(2)oftheTradeMarksAct1994.282 Section76(2)oftheTradeMarksAct1994;Section27A(1)oftheRegisteredDesignsAct1949;Section251(4)CDPA.283 Section26ofthePlantVarietiesAct1997;note,thatthePlantVarietiesandSeedsTribunalhasnotheldahearingsince1984,whichistheresult oftheintroductionofalternativewaysofresolvingdisputesundertheregulationsontheNationalListingandPlantVarietyRights (seeUKGovernment,‘PlantVarietiesandSeedsTribunal:AboutUs’, <https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/plant-varieties-and-seeds-tribunal/about>accessed23September2020.284 Section 88/schedule 2 of the Senior Courts Act 1984.285 See,forexample,JudicialAppointmentsCommittee,‘AuthorisationtositasadeputyHighCourtjudge,IntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourt’ (JudicialAppointments,30September2014) <https://www.judicialappointments.govuk/news/authorisation-sit-deputy-high-court-judge-intellectual-property-enterprise-court> accessed 23 September 2020.286 CourtsandTribunalsJudiciary,‘Judicialappointments’ <https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/jud-appts/>, accessed 23 September 2020.287 JudicialAppointmentCommission,‘Selectiondecision’,<https://www.judicialappointments.govuk/selection-decisions>accessed23September2020.288 ChancelloroftheHighCourt,‘ChancelloroftheHighCourt’(JudiciaryUK,April2019) <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Patents-Court-Guide-April-2019.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020, 2; referenced byBirssJinElectromagneticGeoservicesASAvPetroleumGeo-ServicesandOrs[2016]EWHC27).

UNITED

KINGDOM


Theselectioncriteriaaresetoutdifferentlydependingonthelevelofjudiciaryandaspecificcourtatthatlevel.BecausethePatentsCourtandtheIPECarepartsofthegeneralChanceryDivision,andthusalsooftheHighCourt,thelawprovidesthesamegeneralselectionrequirementsforthecandidatesfortheposition of a judge of these courts.289Similar requirements,modifiedaccordingly,applytodistrictandcircuitjudges,whoarenotmembersoftheHighCourt,butmayconsiderIPcaseseitherwithintheIPECorin one of the County Court hearing centres.290Therequirements,jointlyreferredtoas‘judicialappointmenteligibilitycondition’,compriseof,mostnotably,anumberofyearspostqualificationexperience(‘PQE’),i.e.yearsofengagementin‘law-relatedactivities’foraminimumof20%ofeachyearintheyearssincequalification.291 ‘Law-related activities’ are defined relatively broadly and include, in a non-exhaustivemanner,thefollowing:carryingoutof judicialfunctions,actingasanarbitrator,practisingasalawyer,teaching and researching law,which could be done on a full-time or part-time basis,with orwithoutremunerationandcouldalsobecarriedoutintheUnitedKingdomorelsewhere.292ThenumberofPQEyearsrequireddiffersdependingonthejudicialofficeinquestion.293 For district judges294andtheofficesof‘chairman’and‘deputychairman’oftheCopyrightTribunal295therequiredPQEisfiveyears,whileforcircuitjudgesandthejudgesoftheHighCourtthethresholdissetatsevenyears.296 As an alternative tothePQErequirement,candidatesmaybasetheirapplicationsonthefactofholdingaspecificoffice.Forinstance,acircuitjudgewhohasheldthatofficeforatleasttwoyearsmayapplyforthepositionofaHighCourtjudge,andHighCourtjudgesmayapplyfortheroleofthejudgeoftheCourtofAppeal.297 Additionally,apersonwhohasheldanyjudicialoffice iseligibletoapplyfortherolesof ‘chairman’or‘deputychairman’oftheCopyrightTribunalorpersonsappointedtohearanddetermineappealsundertheTradeMarksAct1994andundertheRegisteredDesignsAct1949.298 The requirements for appointment totheCourtofAppealarerespectivelyhigher:anapplicantmustbeeitheraHighCourtjudge,orhaveatleastsevenyearsofPQE.299

Therefore,candidatesforjudgesdealingwithIPdisputesinoneofthethreecourtshavetoeitherhaveaPQEofatleastsevenyears,oratleasttwoyearsofexperienceasacircuitjudge.However,candidatesfordistrictjudges,qualifiedtodecideIPdisputesattheIPECorinaCountyCourthearingcentre,willonlyhavetopossessaPQEofatleastfiveyears.

Aswasalreadymentioned, the JudicialAppointmentCommitteemay imposeadditional requirementspertaining to the specialised IP-related knowledge and experience in the course of recruitment. Forexample,inajobdescriptionforthepositionofanIPECdeputyjudgetheJudicialAppointmentsCommitteeindicatesIPknowledgeasarequiredexpertise.Thedescriptionstatesthat‘[a]pplicantsforthisexercisewillbeexpectedtodemonstratethequalitiesandabilitiesrequiredofaHighCourtjudge,haveknowledgeof intellectual property law and practical experience of applying it’.300Asaresult,thejudicialnomineesforpositionsattheIPECwillusuallyhavepriorIPexperience.Forinstance,thecurrentlypresidingjudgeoftheIPEC,JudgeHacon,wasanIPbarristerbeforebecomingajudgeandthushadextensiveIPexperienceat the date of his or her nomination to the court.301Similarly,whilethelawdoesnotrequirethecandidatesfor the position of an appointed person who reviews appeals from the decisions of the Comptroller General topossessspecialised IPknowledgeorexperience, inavacancyannouncementpublishedonthegovernmentwebsite,theJudicialAppointmentCommitteemakesitclearthat‘[c]andidatesmusthaveknowledge of intellectual property law and experience of applying the law’.302

289 Section 10(3)(c) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. 290 Inrelationtocircuitjudges:ibidSection68(1)(a);inrelationtodistrictjudges,seeforexample:Rule63.19CPR.291 JudicialAppointmentsCommittee,‘Eligibilityforlegallyqualifiedcandidates’(JudicialAppointments) <https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/eligibility-legally-qualified-candidates>accessed23September2020.292 Section52oftheTribunals,CourtsandEnforcementAct2002.293 JudicialAppointmentCommittee,‘Eligibility’<https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/007-eligibility>accessed23September2020.294 Section9oftheCountyCourtsAct1984;JudicialAppointmentsCommittee,(n291).295 Section145(3)CDPA.296 Section 10(3)(c) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.297 ibid Section 10(3)(b-c).298 Section77(2)oftheTradeMarksAct1994;Section27BoftheRegisteredDesignsAct1949.299 JudicialAppointmentsCommittee,‘CourtofAppeal’<https://www.judicialappointments.govuk/court-appeal>,accessed23September2020.300 Judicial Appointments Committee (n 285).301 CourtsandTribunalsJudiciary,‘HisHonourJudgeHacon’(JudiciaryUK,31July2015) <https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/his-honour-judge-hacon>accessed23September2020.302 JudicialAppointmentsCommission,‘00956Fee-paidAppointedPersons,AppealTribunal,TradeMarksand00957Fee-paidAppointedPerson, AppealTribunal,RegisteredandUnregisteredDesign’(JudicialAppointments,16December2014)accessed23September2020. <https://www.judicialappointments.gov.uk/00956-feepaid-appointed-persons-appeal-tribunal-trade-marks-and-00957-feepaid-appointed-person>

UNITED

KINGDOM


AttheCourtofAppealandSupremeCourtlevel,certainjudgespossesssignificantIPexpertise;someofthemalsohaveascientific/technicalbackground.Forexample,intheCourtofAppeal,LordJusticeFloydhasextensiveIPexperience.PriortobecomingaLordJusticeofAppeal,hewasassignedtothePatentsCourt and the Copyright Tribunal.303

LJFloydalsohasadegreeinnaturalsciences.Also,LJJusticeArnold,recentlyappointedtotheCourtofAppeal,304hasanextensiveIPexperiencebothasajudgeattheHighCourt’sgeneralChanceryDivisionandthePatentsCourt,aswellasabarrister.305IntheSupremeCourt,LordKitchinhassignificantIPexperience,havingconsiderednumerousIPcasesintheCourtofAppealandearlierinthegeneralChanceryDivisionoftheHighCourt.LordKitchinalsohasadegreeinnaturalsciences.AnotherSupremeCourtjudge,LordHodge,alsohasIPexperience.306

TheLordChiefJusticeandtheSeniorPresidentofTribunalsareresponsibleforthearrangementsoftrainingforjudgespursuanttotheConstitutionalReformAct2005andtheTribunals,CourtsandEnforcementAct2007.307TheseresponsibilitiesareexercisedthroughtheJudicialCollege,whichhasestablishedajudicialskills and abilities framework for judges. The framework describes the skills and abilities required by judicial officeholders,suchasknowledgeandcommunicationskills.308 All judges have induction training and a programmeofcontinuingeducationand‘whereverfeasiblewillhavethechoiceintheelementswhichmeettheir training needs’.309Thetraining isundertakenbothface-to-faceandelectronically,andcoversthreemainareas:(i)substantivelaw,evidenceandprocedure;(ii)acquisitionandimprovementofjudicialskills(includingleadershipandmanagement),and(iii)socialcontext(includingdiversitytraining).310

1.3. Location of the IP Court and number of judgesThegeneralChanceryDivision,thePatentsCourtandtheIPECaresituatedinLondon,wheremostoftheIPdisputes are decided. These three courts along with certain other specialist courts now operate under the umbrellaname‘BusinessandPropertyCourts’.311TheseincludethemainLondonofficeandregionalofficesinsixcitieswheretheHighCourt’sdistrictregistriesarelocated,namelyManchester,Birmingham,Leeds,Cardiff,NewcastleandBristol.WhiletheLondonofficedealswithallIPclaimsatallstagesofproceedings,the district registries may conduct case management and trials only if an appropriate judge is available.312Inorderforacasetobeheardinanyoftheregionaloffices,theremustbea‘regionalconnection’totheregionat stake.313However,sinceOctober2019IPdisputesallocatedtothesmallclaimstrackintheIPECcanbeconsidered by the district judges residing at one of the district registries on a permanent basis.314Importantly,oraltestimonyofwitnessescanbegivenviavideofacilitiesinallspecialisedIPcourts.315 As to the other forafortheadjudicationofIPdisputes,theCopyrightTribunal,theCourtsofAppealandtheSupremeCourtarealsoallsituatedinLondon.TheCountyCourthearingcentrescompetenttoconsiderIPdisputeswiththeexceptionofpatent,registereddesign,semiconductortopographyandplantvarietydisputesarelocatedinBirmingham,Bristol,Caernarfon,Cardiff,Leeds,Liverpool,Manchester,Mold,NewcastleuponTyneandPreston.316However,thehearingcentresinCaernarfon,MoldandPrestonarenotauthorisedtodealwithregistered trade mark and Community trade mark disputes.317

303 CourtsandTribunalsJudiciary,‘BiographiesoftheCourtofAppealjudges’(JudiciaryUK) <https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/coa-biogs/>accessed23September2020.304 EleonoraRosati,‘MrJusticeArnoldtobecomeLordJusticeArnold:congratulations!’(IPKat,16July2019) <http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2019/07/mr-justice-arnold-to-become-lord.html>accessed23September2020.305 Courtsandtribunalsjudiciary,‘MrJusticeArnold’(JudiciaryUK)<https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/mr-justice-arnold/> accessed 23 September 2020.306 TheSupremeCourt,‘BiographiesoftheJustices’(TheSupremeCourt)<https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/biographies-of-the-justices.html> accessed 23 September 2020.307 CourtsandTribunalsJudiciary,‘JudicialCollege’(JudiciaryUK) <https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/training-support/judicial-college/>accessed23September2020.308 Courtsandtribunalsjudiciary,‘JudicialSkillsandAbilitiesFramework’(JudiciaryUK,2014) <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/judicial-skills-and-abilities-framework-2014.pdf>accessed23September2020.309 JudicialCollege,‘StrategyoftheJudicialCollege2019-2020’(JudiciaryUK,November2017) <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/judicial-college-strategy-2018-2020.pdf>accessed23September2020,paras16-17.310 ibid paras 13 and 20.311 ‘TheBusinessandPropertyCourts’(GovernmentUK)<https://www.govuk/courts-tribunals/the-business-and-property-courts> accessed 23 September 2020.312 Paragraph25(3)PD57AA,theBusinessandPropertyCourts.313 Regionalconnectionincludesthefollowing:oneormoreofthepartieshasanaddressorregisteredofficeinthearea;oneormorewitnessesare inthearea;thelocationofthedisputeisinthearea;thedisputeinvolveslandorotherassetsinthearea;thesolicitorsareinthearea(seemoreat JudiciaryUK,‘TheBusinessandPropertyCourtsinLeeds’(JudiciaryUK,6December2017) <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/leeds-bpc-brochure-20171211.pdf>accessed23September2020).314 ‘TheIntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourtGuide’(n271)3.315 Rule32.3CPR.316 Paragraph16.2PD63.317 ibid,16.3.

UNITED

KINGDOM


Asforthenumbersofjudges,theChanceryDivisionasawholecomprises15judges.318 From the judges of theChancery,sixjudgesareauthorisedtositinthePatentsCourt319andonejudge–theso-calledenterprisejudge–intheIPEC.320InadditiontothisonejudgeattheIPEC,whoisajudgeoftheHighCourt,therearealsothreedistrictjudges,whichmakesthetotalnumberofjudgesattheIPECfour.321 The Copyright Tribunal consistsofachairman,twodeputychairmenandsevenlaymembers.322 The Court of Appeal presently has 42judges,323 and 12 judges sit in the Supreme Court.324

II. Rules of procedureThe rulesofprocedure in IPmattersaresetby thecivilprocedure rules (CPR)and thecorrespondingPractice Directions. In addition, a specialised IP procedure within the Rules (Part 63 along with thePracticeDirection63)appliesasalexspecialis.CertainproceduralprovisionsarealsoincludedintheIPstatutes,suchasthePatentsAct1977,theTradeMarksAct1994,theCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988(CDPA),RegisteredDesignsAct1949andthePlantVarietiesAct1997.

2.1. Composition of the court in IP casesIntellectualpropertycasesatfirstinstance,includingattheIPEC,thePatentsCourt,thegeneralChanceryDivision,andthedesignatedCountyCourthearingcentres,areheardbyasinglejudge.325 There is no jury inIPcases.326IntheIPEC,aspecificcompositiondependsonthetracktowhichthecaseisallocated,i.e.themulti-trackorthesmallclaimstrack.Multi-trackcasesintheIPECareheardeitherbyJudgeHaconoroneofthedeputyjudgesandrecorders,whoareintellectualpropertyspecialists.327 Small claims cases are heard by one of the three district judges sitting in London or by one of the district judges sitting at the districtregistries.TheCopyrightTribunal,ingeneral,sitsinpanelsofthree.

Appeals at the Court of Appeal may be heard by one or more judges.328 The number of judges depends on the complexity of the case329andtheexistenceofanyadditionalarrangements,whichmaybeintroducedbytheMasterofRolls330 for the purpose of any particular proceedings.331Asaresult,inpracticeacasewill typically be heard by a panel of three judges.332Finally,theSupremeCourttypicallyconsiderscasesinapaneloffive.333

318 GovernmentUK,‘ChanceryDivisionoftheHighCourt’(GOVUK) <https://www.govuk/courts-tribunals/chancery-division-of-the-high-court>accessed23September2020.319 GovernmentUK‘ChanceryandPatentsCourtJudges’(GOVUK),<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/chancery-judges>,accessed23September2020.320 CourtsandTribunalsJudiciary,‘IntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourt–Judges’(JudiciaryUK)<https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary /going-to-court/high-court/courts-of-the-chancery-division/intellectual-property-enterprise-court/judges/>accessed23September2020.321 ibid.322 Section145CDPA;seeGovernmentUK,‘CopyrightTribunal–Membership’, <https://www.govuk/government/organisations/copyright-tribunal/about/membership>,accessed23September2020.323 CourtsandTribunalsJudiciary,‘SeniorJudiciary’(JudiciaryUK,25June2019) <https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list/>accessed23September2020.324 ‘BiographiesoftheJustices’(n306).325 HMCourts&TribunalsService,‘ThePatentsCourtGuide’,availableat <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Patents-Court-Guide-April-2019.pdf>,accessed23September2020;GovernmentUK, ‘IntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourtGuide’(n271);HMCourts&TribunalsService,‘ChanceryGuide’(n264);HMCourts&TribunalsService, ‘CountyCourt’(n267).326 ‘Patent litigation in the UK (England and Wales): overview by Susie Middlemiss and Laura Balfour, Slaughter and May’ (Practical Law) Note Number 3-623-0277.327 Courtsandtribunalsjudiciary,‘IntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourt–Judges’(JudiciaryUK,2014)<https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary /going-to-court/high-court/courts-of-the-chancery-division/intellectual-property-enterprise-court/judges/>accessed23September2020.328 Section 54(3-4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.329 See,forexample,ColdunellLtdvGallonandanother[1986]1AllER429,wheretheCourtofAppealstatedthat‘ifcounselareoftheviewthatpoints ofrealdifficultyarise,itisalwaysopentothemtoapplytotheregistrarforthehearingtotakeplacebeforeacourtofthree’.330 MasterofRolls,besidesotherthings,actsasthepresidentofthecivildivisionontheCourtofAppeal.331 Section 54(3-4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.332 Judiciary UK, ‘Court of Appeal Judges’ (Judiciary UK, February 2015), <https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/ judicial-roles/judges/coa-judges/>accessed23September2020,accordingtowhich‘[a]llJudgesoftheCourtofAppealpossessequalpower, authority and jurisdiction. Lord/Lady Justices normally sit in panels of three, and the decision of each judge carries equal weight so that adissentingjudgmentmaybeissued’;Thisisalsothecaseinpatentdisputes(See‘PatentlitigationintheUK(EnglandandWales):overview bySusieMiddlemissandLauraBalfour,SlaughterandMay’(n324).333 The Supreme Court, ‘Panel numbers criteria’ (Supreme Court UK) <https://www.supremecourt.uk/procedures/panel-numbers-criteria.html> accessed23September2020,accordingtowhichcasescanbeheardinpanelswithmorethanfivejudgesiftheCourtisbeingaskedtodepart, ormaydecidetodepartfromapreviousdecision,ifacaseisofhighconstitutionalimportance,ifacaseisofgreatpublicimportance,ifacase is to be reconciled with a conflicting decision of the House of Lords, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and/or the Supreme Court hastobereconciledorifacaseraisesanimportantpointinrelationtotheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights.

UNITED

KINGDOM


2.2. Jurisdiction in IP casesTheallocationof IPcasesbetweenthethreespecialisedfirst instancecourts, i.e.thePatentsCourt, theIPECandthegeneralChanceryDivision,iscarriedoutinaccordancewiththetwocriteria:(a)thetypeoftheIPright,and(b)thevalueoftheclaim.Underthefirstcriterion,namelythetypeoftheIPright,theCPR334 andthePracticeDirection63335provideanexhaustivelistoftypesofIPrightsfallingwithinthescopeofthespecialIPprocedure,andallocateeachtypeofIPtooneofthecourts.336Ingeneral,patents,registereddesign, semiconductor topography and plant variety disputes are considered by either the IPEC or thePatentsCourt,whereastherestofIPdisputesareconsideredeitherbytheIPECorthegeneralChanceryDivision.Underthesecondcriterion,i.e.thevalueoftheclaim,subjecttotheexceptionsexplainedbelow,theIPECiscompetentinallthedisputeswheretheamountorvalueoftheclaimdoesnotexceed£500,000.ThePatentsCourtandthegeneralChanceryDivisiondealwithcertaintypesofdisputeswherethevalueofthe claim exceeds the said threshold.337

Thus, inaccordancewiththeforegoingcriteria, the IPEChearsabroadsetofclaimsrelatingtopatents,designs,copyright,trademarks,semiconductortopographyrights,plantvarietyrightsaswellasotherIPrights setout inPracticeDirection63, provided that theamountor valueof the claimdoesnot exceed£500,000.338Partiestoadisputemayagree,however,thattheIPECshallhavejurisdictiontoawarddamagesorprofitsinexcessof£500,000.339Aswasmentionedabove,therearetwotypesofproceduresintheIPEC,themulti-trackorthesmallclaimstrack.Whilethemulti-trackisthedefaultoption,acasewillbeallocatedto thesmall claims track if the followingconditionsare jointly fulfilled:340 (i) the case does not concern patents,registereddesigns,semiconductortopographyrightsorplantvarieties;341 (ii) the value of the claim doesnotexceed£10,000; (iii) theparticularsof theclaimstatethattheclaimantwishestheclaimtobeallocatedtothesmallclaimstrack,and(iv)noobjectiontotheclaimbeingallocatedtothesmallclaimstrack was raised by the defendant in the defence.342

ThePatentsCourthearsclaimsrelatingtopatents,UKregistereddesigns,theuseoftechnicalinformationby Crown contractors for production and supply of defence materials, Community registered designs,semiconductortopographyrightsandplantvarieties,providedthattheamountorvalueoftheclaimexceeds£500,000.343ThegeneralChanceryDivisionwillbecompetentwheretheclaimconcernsatypeofIPthatdoesnotfallwithinthejurisdictionofthePatentsCourt,suchascopyrightsortrademarks,andtheamountorvalueoftheclaimexceeds£500,000.344

ThejurisdictionoftheIPcourtsinrelationtopatents,registereddesigns,semi-conductortopographiesandplantvarieties isexclusive. In relation toother IPdisputes,aswasalreadymentioned, theclaimsmayalsobefiledwithoneofthedesignatedCountyCourthearingcentreswherethereisalsoaChanceryDistrictRegistry.345Whilethechoiceofvenueisgenerally lefttotheclaimant,thefactthatthecaseiscomplex or requires specialised knowledge can be a factor in transferring the case subject to the rules described below.346TheCountyCourthearingcentreswillgenerallyhearsmallerandlesscomplexcases,requiringalesserdegreeofspecialisation;thecentresarenotcompetenttoconsiderappealsagainstthedecision of the comptroller.347

334 Rule63.1CPR.335 Paragraph16.1PD63.336 Rule63.1CPR,whichlistsallofthefollowing:registeredintellectualpropertyrightssuchaspatents,registereddesigns,registeredtrademarks; unregisteredintellectualpropertyrightssuchascopyright,designright,therighttopreventpassingoff;andtheotherrightssetoutinPractice Direction63,namelycopyright,rightsinperformances,rightsconferredunderPartVIICDPA,designright,Communitydesignright,association rights,moralrights,databaserights,unauthoriseddecryptionrights,hallmarks,claimsinrespectoftechnicaltradesecrets,passingoff,protected designationsoforigin,protectedgeographicalindicationsandtraditionalspecialityguarantees,registeredtrademarksandCommunitytrademarks.337 For the purposes of determining the amount or the value of a claim, a claim for interest other than interest payable under an agreement, orforcosts,isdisregarded(Rule63.17(A)(2)CPR).338 ibid Rule 63.13.339 ibid Rule 63.17A(3).340 ibid Rule 63.27(a).341 ibid Rule 63.13 in conjunction with Rules 63.2 and 63.27(a).342 ibid Rules 63.27(b)-(d).343 ibid Rule 63.2.344 ibid Rule 63.12 and Rule 63.2(1).345 Rule63.13(c)CPR.346 Rule30.3(c-d)CPR;formoreinformationseeAngelaFox,IntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourt:PracticeandProcedure,(Sweet&Maxwell2016).347 Rule63.16CPR.

UNITED

KINGDOM


Theso-calledancillarymatters,i.e.,mattersnotrelatedtoIPassuchbutnecessarytoresolveanIPdispute,maybeconsideredbyanIPCourt.348Asaresult,whiletheCountyCourtandtheQueen’sBenchDivisionoftheHighCourt349 have general jurisdiction to hear and determine any action based on contract and tort law,350disputesoveragreementsconcerningIPrights,includingdisputesoverthebreachorvalidityofsuchanagreement,willgenerallybesubjecttothejurisdictionofoneofthespecialisedIPcourts.351

Due the fact that in theUK there is no separate pieceof legislation related to unfair competition, suchdisputes are resolved under the common law doctrine of passing off.352PassingoffdisputesareexpresslylistedintheCPRand,similartoothertypesofIPrightsexplainedabove,aredecidedeitherbythegeneralChanceryDivision,theIPECortheCountyCourthearingcentres,dependingonthevalueoftheclaim.353 The recognitionoftrademarksas‘well-known’isundertakenonacase-by-casebasis.354Therefore,itisuptotheComptroller,theIPECorthegeneralChanceryDivisiontodeterminewhetheratrademarkiswell-known.

Aswas alreadymentioned, an IP disputemay be transferred between specialised and non-specialisedcourts,aswellaswithinthespecialisedIPcourts’structure.TheHighCourtmayorderproceedingsinanyDivisionoftheHighCourttobetransferredtoanotherDivision.355Forexample,ajudgedealingwithclaimsinaspecialistlist,suchastheIPECorthePatentsCourt,mayorderproceedingstobetransferredtoorfromthat list. An application for the transfer of proceedings to or from a specialist list must be made to a judge dealing with claims in that list.356 A judge sitting in the County Court357orthegeneralChanceryDivisionmayordertheproceedingstobetransferredtotheIPEC.358 This may be done by means of an application by the parties359toajudgesittingintheCountyCourtorthegeneralChanceryDivisionrespectively,requestingthetransferofproceedingstotheIPEC.360WhendecidingwhethertoorderthetransferofproceedingstotheIPEC,thecourttakesintoaccountwhetherapartycanonlyaffordtobringordefendtheclaimintheIPEC,whethertheclaimisappropriatetobedeterminedbytheIPEChavingregard,inparticular,tothevalueoftheclaim(includingthevalueofaninjunction),thecomplexityoftheissuesandtheestimatedlengthofthe trial.361 Similar factors are taken into account when deciding whether to transfer the cases between the CountyCourthearingcentresandtheHighCourt.Inthisrespectthecourtwillconsider,forexample,thefinancialvalueoftheclaimandtheamountindispute,theavailabilityofajudgespecialisinginthetypeofclaiminquestion,andinparticulartheavailabilityofaspecialist judgesittinginanappropriateregionalspecialistcourt,orthecomplexityofthecase.362

ThejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPCourtsintheUKisnotdependentonthelegalstatusoftheclaimant;this applies equally to the proceedings in the small claims track before the IPEC.Neither Rule 63 CPRnorPracticeDirection63refers to the legalstatusof theclaimant.Similarly, the lawdoesnotmakethejurisdictionoftheIPcourtsdependentonwhethertheclaimantistheauthorofthecopyright,i.e.,thecreatorofawork.TheCDPA,definingthelegalstandinginthecaseofcopyrightinfringement,referstoan‘owner’ofcopyright,whichimpliesthattheactdoesnotprecludeothertypesofcopyrightownerssuchassuccessorsintitle,employeesorexclusivelicensees,fromfilingclaimsinthespecialisedIPcourt.363

348 ibid[2-006].349 GovernmentUK,‘Queen’sBenchDivision:bringacasetothecourt’(GOVUK,25February2019) <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court>accessed23September2020.350 Section 15(1) of the County Courts Act 1984; in assessing whether an action is based on contract, the courtsmust look at the substance ofthematterratherthanthetechnicalformofthepleadings(SachsvHenderson[1902]1K.B.612).351 MassimoOstiSRLvGlobalDesignandInnovationLtdandanother[2018]EWHC2263(Ch);ScomadiLtdvRAEngineeringCoLtd[2018]F.S.R.14; HotelCiprianiSRLandothersvCipriani(GrosvenorStreet)Ltdandothers-[2010]AllER(D)85(Jun);seealsoFox(n337).352 Reckitt&ColmanLtdvBordenInc.[1990]1AllE.R.873.353 Paragraph16.1(12)ofPracticeDirection63inconjunctionwithRule63.13CPR.354 CiprianiSRLandothersvCipriani(GrosvenorStreet)Limited[2008]EWHC3032.355 Rule30.5CPR.356 ibid Rule 30.5(2-3).357 TheCountyCourtisafirstinstancecourtthathearscivilcases(SeemoreatCourtsandtribunalsjudiciary,‘CountyCourt’(JudiciaryUK) <https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/county-court/>accessed26August2019).358 Rule63.18(1)(a)CPR.359 DKHRetailLtdvRepublic(Retail)Ltd[2012]EWHC877(Ch).360 Rule63.18(1)(b)inconjunctionwithRule30.5CPR.361 Paragraph9.1PD30.362 Rule30.3(2)CPR.363 Sections16,92(1),96(1)and101CDPA.

UNITED

KINGDOM


The Copyright Tribunal considers commercial licensing disputes between copyright owners or collecting societies and the copyright material users.364Specifically,thetribunalwillbecompetentinrelationto,forexample,applicationstodetermineamountofequitableremuneration,365referencesoflicensedschemes,366 applicationstosettleroyaltiesorothersumspayablefor lendingofcertainworks,367 and to settle terms of copyright licence available as of right.368 There are two tracks at the Copyright Tribunal, the smallapplications track and the standard applications track.369Whenallocatinganapplication,thetribunaltakeintoaccount: (i) thefinancialvalueof theapplication toeachof theparties; (ii)whether the facts, legalissues,reliefrequestedorproceduresinvolvedaresimpleorcomplex;(iii)theimportanceoftheoutcomeofthe application to the other licensees or putative licensees of a licensing body.370 Applications in which the factsandlegalissuesaresimpleandthefinancialvalueislessthan£50,000toeachpartyareconsideredin the small applications track.371 In practice, the small application track is likely to apply only to suchapplicationsthathavenoramificationsfortheratespayablebyotherlicensees(forexamplearefusalbythelicensing body to grant a licence to an individual licence applicant) or references concerning very limited scheme.372Thestandardtrackappliestoallotherapplications.Inborderlinecases,thetribunalmayrequestthe parties to choose the track they consider to be the most appropriate before allocating the application.

AppealsagainstthedecisionsoftheComptrollerinrelationtopatentsmaybesubmittedonlytotheHighCourt.373 At the same time, appeals against the decisionsof theComptroller in relation to trademarks,designs and unregistered designsmay be brought either to the High Court or to an appointed person,i.e., a special official appointed solely for the purposeof deciding appeals against the decisionsof theComptroller.374Whereanappealismadetoanappointedperson,heorshemayrefertheappealtotheHighCourtif:(i)itappearsthatapointofgenerallegalimportanceisinvolved;(ii)theComptrollerrequeststhatitbesoreferred,or(iii)sucharequestismadebyanypartytotheproceedingsbeforetheComptrollerinwhich the decision appealed against was made.375BeforereferringthecasetotheHighCourt,theappointedperson shall give the appellant and any other party to the appeal an opportunity to make representations as towhethertheappealshouldbereferredtotheHighCourt.Whereanappealismadetoanappointedpersonandheorshedoesnotreferittothecourt,thecasewillbeheardbytheappointedperson.376Insuchcases,thedecisionwillbefinalwithnoopportunityforfurtherappeal.Inrelationtoplantvarieties,appealsagainstthedecisionsoftheComptrollerlietothePlantVarietiesandSeedsTribunal.377IfapartyisnotsatisfiedwithadecisionoftheTribunal,itmayfileanappealwiththeHighCourt.378

InadditiontoitspowertograntorrefuseagrantofanIPright,theComptrollerGeneralofPatents,DesignsandTradeMarksalsohas jurisdictionovercertainmattersrelatingtopatentsandunregistereddesigns,includingtherevocationofpatentsasinvalid,thegrantofcompulsorylicenses,thesettlementoftermsoflicense of rights and the award of compensation to employees.379Furthermore,theComptrollercandecidedisputes on infringement claims and revocation counterclaims concerning patents if so authorised by the parties.380Finally,apartytoadisputeconcerninganunregistereddesignmayreferthedisputetotheComptroller.381Inpractice,thedisputesarerarelyreferredtotheComptrollerasheorshelackstheauthoritytograntaninjunctiverelief,andincaseswhenadisputeislostthiswillgivenogroundsforestoppel.382

364 GovernmentUK,‘CopyrightTribunal’<https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/copyright-tribunal#content>accessed23September2020.365 Section93CCDPA.366 Section118ff.CDPA.367 Section142CDPA.368 Section144(4)CDPA.369 Rule17(1)oftheCopyrightTribunalRules2010,SI2010/791.370 ibid Rule 17(2).371 ibid Rule 17(3).372 ‘TheCopyrightTribunal—purposeandprocedure–producedinpartnershipwithBird&Bird’(LexisPSL)Practicenotes.373 Section97(1)ofthePatentsAct1977.374 Section76(2)oftheTradeMarksAct1994;Section27ARegisteredDesignsAct;Section251(4)CDPA.375 Section76(3)oftheTradeMarksAct1994;Section27A(2)RegisteredDesignsAct;Section251(4)oftheCDPA.376 Section76(4)oftheTradeMarksAct1994;Section27A(4)oftheRegisteredDesignsAct;Section251(4)CDPA.377 Section27(1)ofthePlantVarietiesAct1997.378 Section45(1)ofthePlantVarietiesAct1997inconjunctionwithSection11(1)oftheTribunalsandInquiriesAct1992.379 Sections72,48,46(3)and40ofthePatentsAct1977.380 Section61(3)ofthePatentsAct1977.381 Section246CDPA.382 LionelBentlyandBradSherman,IntellectualPropertyLaw(4thedition,OxfordUniversityPress2014)1223.

UNITED

KINGDOM


ItisimportanttonotethatonlycivilIPdisputesfallwithinthejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPcourts.Therefore,disputes relating to information security and cybercrime are not heard by these courts.383Inthesamevein,IP-relatedadministrativedisputes,suchastaxandcustomscases,falloutsideofthejurisdictionofthespecialisedIPcourts.Consequently,appealsagainstthedecisionsoftheBorderForceandHerMajesty’sRevenueandCustoms(HMRC),i.e.thebodiescompetenttodealwithcustomsenforcementofIPrights,384 are reviewed by either the administrative or criminal courts. Specifically, the administrative branch (First-tier Tribunals andUpperTribunals)wouldusuallydealwiththedecisionsoftheabovetwobodies.385However,whereaclaimantcontendstheseizureofgoodsbythecustomsauthorities,theso-called‘condemnationproceedings’,theclaimmustbefiledwithacriminalcourt–eithertheHighCourt(theQueen’sBenchdivision)oramagistrates’court.386 Similarly,thespecialisedIPcourtsarenotcompetenttodecideontaxcases,eveniftheyinvolveanIPelement;taxrelateddecisionsoftheHMRCarereviewedbytheFirst-tierTribunalsandUpperTribunals.387

2.3. Evidence in IP casesVarious forms of evidence can be relied upon in IP disputes. Specific rules exist in relation to usingmodels or apparatus and providing evidence by experiments in patent litigation.388Inthisrespect,ifacaseinvolvessubstantialandcomplexexperimentalevidence,itwillnotbesuitablefortheIPEC,andwillthusbeconsideredbythegeneralChanceryDivisionorthePatentsCourt.389Specificrulesalsoexistinrelationtosurveyevidenceintrademarklitigation,typicallyusedtoprovedistinctiveness,reputeofamarkandthelikelihood of confusion or deception.390Also,PracticeDirection32stipulatestherequirementsinrelationtowitness statements and corresponding exhibits in civil proceedings.391

An important stage inan IPdispute is thedisclosurestage,duringwhichapartydisclosesdocumentsrelevant to a dispute.392ThegeneralrulesconcerningdisclosureincivilcasesaresetinPart31CPR,whilethepatent-specificrulescanbefoundinPracticeDirection63(Rule63.9).393 The purpose of the disclosure stage is to ensure that all parties are made aware of all documents that have a bearing on the case.394 Disclosureisorderedbythecourtandcantakeplaceevenbeforealitigationstarts.395

2.3.1. Evidence in electronic formElectronic evidence in the UK is examined from the perspective of its admissibility, authentication anddisclosure. Evidence will pass the admissibility hurdle if it is relevant to the case.396 Subject to the rules on authenticationanddisclosurediscussedbelow,thereisnorequirementofaspecificforminwhichevidencemustbesubmittedtothecourt,i.e.thereisnorequirementthatevidencemustbesubmittedinanoriginalform.397Therefore,ifelectronicevidenceisrelevanttothecase,itwillgenerallybeadmittedinanyform.However, even relevant evidencemaystill be excluded if oneof the following conditions is fulfilled: theevidenceisprivileged,398itqualifiesashearsayandthestatutoryobligationsarenotcompliedwith,399 or the admission of it would cost disproportionate costs.400

383 Aseparatespecialisedcourtdedicatedtothesemattersmaybeintroducedinduecourse.SeeGovernmentUK,‘World-classfraudandcybercrime court approved for London’s Fleetbank House site’ (GOVUK, 4 July 2018) <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/worldclass-fraud-and- cybercrime-court-approved-for-londons-fleetbank-house-site#:~:text=Guidance%20and%20support-,World%2Dclass%20fraud%20and%20 cybercrime%20court%20approved%20for%20London’s%20Fleetbank,tonight%20(Wednesday%204%20July)> accessed 23 September 2020.384 CustomsandExciseAct1979,Section139;GovernmentUK,‘Notice34:intellectualpropertyrights’(GOVUK,17July2019) <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-34-intellectual-property-rights>accessed23September2020.385 TheFirst-tierTribunalandUpperTribunal(Chambers)Order2010,Section7andSection13;formoreinformationseeGovernmentUK, ‘Appealtothetaxtribunal’(GOVUK)<https://www.gov.uk/tax-tribunal/appeal-to-tribunal>accessed23September2020.386 Section8,Schedule3oftheCustomsandExciseManagementAct1979.387 Section7andSection13oftheFirst-tierTribunalandUpperTribunal(Chambers)Order2010;inrelationtoVATrefertoSection83 oftheValueAddedTaxAct1994.388 Paragraphs7.1-7.3and8.1ofPracticeDirection63.389 ‘TheIntellectualPropertyEnterpriseCourtGuide’(n271)7.TheguidanceinthisrespectissetoutinthecaseofInterfloraInc.vMarks&Spencer PLC[2013]WLR(D)206,[2013]EWHC1291(Ch).390 InterfloraInc.vMarks&SpencerPLC[2013]WLR(D)206,[2013]EWHC1291(Ch).391 Exhibitscanbeletters,documentsandotheritemsthatarenotdocuments,suchassmallitemsplacedinanappropriatelymarkedcontainer.392 Rule31.2CPR.393 Paragraphs6.1,6.2and6.3PracticeDirection31B.394 Justice.govuk,‘Disclosureofdocuments’(JusticeGovUk,30January2017) <https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/standard-directions/general/disclosure-of-documents>accessed23September2020.395 Rule31.16CPR.396 DirectorofPublicProsecutionsvKilbourne[1973]AC729.Whilethejudgementsconcernedacriminalcase,the‘relevance’standardestablished thereinisalsoappliedincivilcases(O’BrienvChiefConstableofSouthWalesPolice[2005]UKHL26).397 The‘bestevidencerule’intheUKwasconsiderablylimitedbyMasqueradeMusicLtd&OrsvMrBruceSpringsteen[2001]EWCACiv563.398 Evidenceisprivilegedifthelawentitlesthepartythatholdstheevidencetorefusetodivulgeitscontent.Thatwillbethecase,forinstance,with evidencesubjecttolegalprofessionalprivilege(R.(ontheapplicationofMorganGrenfell&CoLtd)vSpecialCommissionersofIncomeTax[2002]UKHL21).399 The exclusion of hearsay applies only to limited circumstances, where the party fails to comply with the requirements put forward in the Civil Evidence Act 1995. 400 StephenMason,‘TheUseofElectronicEvidenceinCivilandAdministrativeLawProceedingsanditsEffectontheRulesofEvidenceandModes ofProof’(CouncilofEurope2016)CDCJ(2015)14.

UNITED

KINGDOM


Asageneralrule,theauthenticationhurdlewillbepassedwhenevidenceisidentifiedtobewhatitpurportsto be.401Therefore,anydocumentorcopymustbeauthenticatedinordertobeadmitted.402 Such terms as a‘document’and‘copy’includeelectronicdocumentsandcopiesofelectronicdocuments.403Therefore,the authentication requirement also applies to evidence in electronic form.404 Inthisrespect,thecarrierofelectronicdocumentsisirrelevant:generally,courtswillacceptanycarriersaslongastheelectronicdocumentitselfisauthenticated.However,rulesofthecourtmightspecifythataparticularformofcarrieris required.405Theauthenticityrequirementmaybesatisfiedbypresentingdocumentsintheirnativeformat(see disclosure requirements below). The authenticity of electronic documents may also be proved by presentingotheradmissibleevidence.Forexample,inNobel Resources SA v Gross,406SMSmessagesonaBlackBerrywerechallengedasinauthentic.Nonetheless,theproponentprovedauthenticitybypresentingtechnicalevidencethatitwasnotpossibletoalteranSMSmessageonaBlackBerryonceitisreceivedorsentandthatitwouldbeverydifficulttoalterdataonaserverback-up.407Inpractice,authenticationdoesnot raiseanyspecificproblemsand, thus, it is typicallyadmitted,deemedorpresumed.408Specifically,electronic evidence will be presumed to be authentic if the other party has not questioned the disclosure and thus has not requested that the authenticity of the document is proved at trial.409Therefore, ifbothparties and the court accept the authenticity of the evidence, it will be admittedwithout any need ofadditional proof.410

Ifchallenged,electronicdocumentswouldbepresumedauthentic,iftheyaredisclosedinaccordancewiththefollowingprinciplesofdisclosure.Therulesfordisclosurerequirethatevidenceismanagedefficientlyandprovidedinaformatthatallowsthepartyreceivingthedocumentstohavethesameaccess,search,review and display as the party providing it.411Disclosureofelectronicdocuments,unlessagreedororderedotherwise,hastobeintheir‘nativeformat’,inamannerwhichpreservesthemetadatarelatingtothecreationof the document.412The‘nativeformat’isdefinedasanelectronicdocumentstoredintheoriginalforminwhich it was created by a computer software program.413 The rationale behind this requirement is that the preservationofthenativeformatallowsaccesstothemetadata,whichinturnallowstheidentificationoftheauthor,timeofcreation,etc.414Websites,includingsocialmediasuchasFacebook,TwitterandLinkedIn,allfallwithinthedefinitionofa‘document’.415Therefore,fordisclosurepurposes,themetadatarelatedtothe creation of such a document should be preserved.416Ifsearchableversionsofdocumentsexist,theseshould be provided.417Disclosureofthediscloseddocuments inanelectronicformhastobesetout ina continuous table or spreadsheet unless the parties agree otherwise.418 Inorder toensurecompliancewiththeserules,companiesmightintroduceBritishStandard‘BS10008:2008Evidentialweightandlegaladmissibility of electronic information’.419Thatbeingsaid,partiesusuallyagreeonthemannerandscopeofdiscoveryofelectronicevidence,forexampletherelevantcategoriesofelectronicevidence,thescopeofareasonablesearch,thetoolsandtechniquestobeusedtoreducetheburden(e.g.limiteddates,useofkeywordsearches,softwaretoolsanddatasampling).420

401 ‘Admissibilityofevidenceincivilproceedings’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber5-562-4665.402 Section 8 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995.403 Section13oftheCivilEvidenceAct,andRule31.4CPR,accordingtowhich‘document’means‘anythinginwhichinformationofanydescription isrecorded’,and‘copy’,inrelationtoadocument,means‘anythingontowhichinformationrecordedinthedocumenthasbeencopied,bywhatever means and whether directly or indirectly’.404 StephenMasonandDanielSeng,Electronicevidence(4thed.,2017)204,48.405 HMCourts&TribunalsService,‘ThePatentsCourtGuide’,(n325),(‘thejudgesrequestthatallimportantdocumentsalsobesuppliedtothemon a USB stick in a format convenient for the judge’s use (normally the current or a recent version of Microsoft Word for Windows or as a text searchable pdf)’.406 [2009]EWHC1435.407 ibid[60].408 ibid.409 Rule32.19CPR.410 MasonandSeng(n404).411 Paragraph6(4)ofPracticeDirection31B.412 Rule33CPR.413 ibid.414 ‘Disclosure:electronicdisclosure:whatisitandhowdoIdealwithit?’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber6-205-5554.Forinstance,thenativeformat ofafilecreatedinMicrosoftExcelis‘XTL’(CivilEvidenceforPractitioners4thEd.,Annex3–Glossaryofe-DisclosureTerms).415 Rule31.4CPR.416 ibid Rule 33.417 Paragraph34ofthePracticeDirection31B.418 ibid paragraph 31(1).419 BritishStandardsInstitution(1998)BS10008:2008‘Evidentialweightandlegaladmissibilityofelectronicinformation’,availableat: <www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/bs-10008-electronic-information-management>accessed23September2020.420 ‘PatentlitigationintheUK(EnglandandWales):overviewbySusieMiddlemissandLauraBalfour,SlaughterandMay’(n326).

UNITED

KINGDOM


2.3.2. ExpertsTherearetwotypesofexpertsinIPlitigation.Thefirstcategoryincludesexperts,instructedbythepartieswith the permission of the court or appointed by the court on its own volition. The second category are ‘assessors’ called upon by the court, or ‘scientific advisors’ if appointed to assist thePatentsCourt.421 Inadditiontothesetwocategoriesofexperts,partiesmayalsodecidetonominatetheso-called‘expertadvisors’,whocannotprovideexpertevidencewithinthemeaningoftheCPR,422 but can advise the party nominating them on technical issues.

Generally, theexpertevidence isgiven inawrittenform,unlessthecourtdirectsotherwise.423While theparticipationofanexpertinIPdisputesisimportant,itisnotmandatory.Thedutyofanexpertistohelpthecourt in the matter within his or her expertise. This duty overrides any obligations to the party that instructs them,424and,therefore,expertevidencemustconstitutetheindependentworkofanexpertunbiasedbythe‘exigenciesoflitigation’.425Moreover,expertevidencemustberestrictedtowhatis‘reasonablyrequiredtoresolvetheproceedings’,426 and is admissible only upon the court’s permission.427

Experts may provide opinion evidence and evidence on questions of fact.428 Opinion evidence concerns mattersonwhichexpertsexpresstheirviewwithintheirexpertise,forexampledecidingwhetheraperson‘wouldhavebeen less likely to fall ifshehadbeenwearinganti-slipattachmentsonher footwear’.429 Inaddition,expertsmayalsoprovideevidenceonquestionsoffacts.Inthisrespect,expertsusetheirspecialknowledge and experience and draw on the work of others, such as findings of published research orknowledge of a team of people the experts work with.430Forexample,expertevidenceoffactmayinvolvetheassessmentofthe‘slopeofthepavement’onwhichthefalltookplace,431orofhowamachineisconfiguredandworks,orhowamotorwayisbuilt.432However,anexpertmaynotsubstitutethecourtindeterminingamatter of law such as a question of patent claim construction.433 An expert is also not allowed to determine a mixed question of facts and law.434Furthermore,itisforthecourttomakeafindingoffact,i.e.toconcludethat a fact was proved.435Thisisduetothefactthatthelegalstandardofproofisdifferentfromthescientificstandard.436 Inparticular,anexpertmaybesatisfiedthat,asamatterofscience,arelationbetweentwofactsexist,butthatdoesnotmeanthatsucharelationwillalsoexistinlaw.437

Ontheotherhand,aswasmentionedabove,theroleofassessorsandscientificadvisorsdiffersfromthatofanexpert.Assessorsandscientificadvisorsdonotprovideexpertevidencestrictosensu.Theydonottakeanactivepartintheproceedings,neitheraretheyexaminednorcross-examinedbytheparties.438Instead,theymerelyassistthecourtindealingwithamatterinwhichtheassessorsandscientificadvisorshaveskills and experience.439Forexample, inpatentcases,scientificadvisorsareappointedtohelpthecourtunderstand the expert report or answer the judges’ questions.440

421 The latter will be discussed in Section 2.3.3.422 ‘Expertevidence:anoverview’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber1-203-0900.423 Rule35.5(1)CPR.424 ibid Rule 35.3.425 WhitehousevJordan[1985]1WLR246;StuartSime,‘Apracticalapproachtocivilprocedure’(18thed.,OUP2015)385.426 Rule35.1CPR.427 ibid;Sime(n425).428 KennedyvCordia(Services)[2016]I.C.R.325.429 ibid[39].430 ibid[41].431 ibid[41].432 ibid[41].433 TechnipFranceSa’sPatent[2004]R.P.C.46;MolnlyckeABandAnothervProcter&GambleLimitedandOthers(No.5)[1994]R.P.C.49.Inrelation to claim construction, the general principle is that the expert is not allowed to decide any question which is ‘properly within the province of the judgeandshouldbeconfined…toanexplanationof the technical terms in thespecification’ (AmericanCyanamidCompanyvEthicon Limited[1979]R.P.C.215,251).Therefore,anexpertmustprovidethecourtwiththe‘meaningoftechnicalterms’,butitisforthejudgeto‘readthe patentthroughtheeyesofthoselikelytohaveapracticalinterestinthesubjectmatterofthepatent’(Molnlycke73).434 ‘Expertevidence:anoverview’(n422).InGravesvBrouwer,[2015]EWCACiv595theCourtofAppealfoundthatacourtcannottreatonesentence ofanexpertopinionas‘criticaltotheoutcomeoftheenquiryintocausation’(ibid[29]).Assessmentofcausationisbasedonfacts,butrequires thetakingintoaccountoflegalconcepts,suchastheburdenofproof,whichremainsexclusivelywithinthepowersofjudges.435 ‘Expertevidence:anoverview’(n422).436 WoodvMinistryofDefence[2011]AllER(D)66(Jul),[60].437 StagecoachSouthWesternTrainsLtdvMsKathleenHind[2014]EWHC1891[89].438 ‘Expertevidence:anoverview’(n422).439 Rule35.15CPR.440 ‘Patent litigation in theUK (EnglandandWales): overviewbySusieMiddlemissandLauraBalfour, Slaughter andMay’ (n326). For example, inElectromagneticGeoservicesASAvPetroleumGeo-ServicesandOrs[2016]EWHC27,ascientificadvisorwasappointedinrelationtomarine CSEM(controlledsourceelectromagneticmethod)toprovidethecourtwithatechnicalintroductionasthecasewashighlytechnical.

UNITED

KINGDOM


2.3.3. Power of the court to appoint an expert unilaterallyWhilethecourtmayappointanexpertonitsowninitiative,inpracticethishappensveryrarely.441Wheretwoormorepartieswishtosubmitexpertevidenceonaparticular issue, thecourtmaydirectthattheevidence on that issue be given by a single joint expert.442Ifthepartiescannotagreeonacandidateforajointexpert,thecourtmayselecttheexpertfromalistpreparedoridentifiedbytheparties,ordirectthattheexpertbeselectedinsuchothermannerasthecourtseesfit.443Consequently,giventhatthecourtmayrequirethepartiestochooseanexpertjointlyunderitsdirection,itwouldbedifficultto‘envisageasituation where a court-appointed expert would be required’.444Inpractice,therefore,theappointmentofexpertsuponthecourt’sowninitiativewouldbelimitedtointerpretersandshorthandwriters,445 as well as assessorsandscientificadvisorsifthecourtconsidersthatitisexpedienttodoso.446Whilethedecisionwhethertoappointassessorsandscientificadvisorsiswithinthediscretionofthecourt,thecourtalwayscarefully considers whether the potential costs of such an appointment for the parties are proportionate tothebenefitsofappointinganassessororscientificadvisors.447Therefore,suchanappointmentwouldusuallytakeplaceincaseswherethesubjectmatteroftheproceedingsis‘technicallycomplexorinvolvesa particular activity which will be unfamiliar to the court’.448

2.4. Preliminary injunctive relief in IP casesIn theUK, the listofpreliminary injunctivereliefs isextensive.ThemostcommontypesofsuchreliefsinIPproceedingsare interiminjunctions,449 freezingorders,450orderstodeliverupgoods,451 and search orders.452Specifically,aninteriminjunctionisissuedpriortothecommencementoforduringproceedings.Itconstitutesanorderof thecourt that requiresapartyeither toperformor refrain fromperformingaspecified act.453 Interim injunctions are a discretionary and temporary measure.454 Freezing orders,alsoknownasMarevainjunctions,restrainapartyfromdisposingofordealingwithitsassets.455 Their purposeis,typically,topreservethedefendant’sassetsuntilthejudgementcanbeobtainedorenforced.456 Freezingorderspermitalltypesofassetstobefrozen,includingbankaccounts,shares,motorvehiclesandland.Itispossibletoobtaindomesticfreezingorders,aswellasworldwidefreezingorders.457Deliveryupordersoperateinasimilarwaytofreezinginjunctionsbutrequirethedefendanttodeliverupthegoodstotheclaimantorsomeoneelsespecifiedintheorder,insteadofmerelyrestrainingthedefendantfromdealing with the goods or disposing of them. The application for delivery up is often combined with a search order.458Finally,searchorderspermittheclaimants(andtheirsolicitors)toinspectthedefendants’premisesandtoseizeorcopyaninformationthatisrelevanttotheallegedinfringement.Sincetheorderaimstoensurethatevidenceisnotdestroyed,theapplicationistypicallymadewithoutgivingnoticetotheparty.459Failuretocomplywiththeorderisacontemptofcourt,resultinginimprisonmentorafine.460 Other typesofpreliminaryinjunctivereliefsinclude,interalia,detention,custody,preservation,inspectionandtaking a sample of a relevant property.461Asthislistofreliefsisnotexhaustive,thecourthasthepowertogrant any remedy not explicitly listed therein.462

441 ‘Expertevidence:anoverview’(n422).442 Rule35.7CPR.443 ‘Expertevidence:anoverview’(n422).444 ibid.445 ibid.446 Section 70 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.447 ‘Expertevidence:anoverview’(n422).448 ibid.449 Rule25.1(1)(a)CPR.450 ibid Rule 25.1(1)(f). The essence of a freezing order is to restrain a party from removing assets from the jurisdiction or restraining a party from dealing with any assets whether located within the jurisdiction or not.451 ibid Rule 25.1(1)(e).452 ibidRule25.1(1)(h).ThesearealsocalledAntonPillerorders,followingtheleadingcasewhichconcernedtradesecrets (AntonPillerKGvManufacturingProcessesLimited[1976]1AllER779).453 ‘Injunctions: an overview by Stuart Ritchie QC, Fountain Court Chambers and James Bickford Smith, Littleton Chambers’ (Practical Law) Note Number 3-619-2826.454 AmericanCyanamidvEthicon[1975]AC396,405.Consequently,ifacourthasgrantedaninteriminjunctionandtheunderlyingmainclaimhas beenstayed,other thanby theagreementbetween theparties, the interim injunctionwillbesetasideunless thecourtorders that it should continuetohaveeffect(Rule25.10CPR).455 MarevaCompaniaNavieraSAvInternationalBulkcarriersSA(1975)2Lloyd’sRep.509.456 ‘Freezingorders:anoverview’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber8-567-3145.457 ibid.458 ‘Preservingpropertyandinterimdeliveryupofgoods’(LexisPSL)PracticeNote.459 Bently and Sherman (n 382) 1216.460 TaylorMadeGolfCompanyvRataandRata[1996]FSR528,whereafineof£75,000wasincurred.461 Rule25.1(1)CPR.462 ibid Rule 25.1(3).

UNITED

KINGDOM


Anapplicationforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefmustbesupportedbyevidence,unlessthecourtordersotherwise.463 The court may grant a preliminary injunctive relief in inter partes and ex parte proceedings. The latter may be granted upon an application without notice to the affected party if it appears to the court that there is a good reason not to give such a notice.464Insuchacase,theapplicationmuststatethereasonswhythenoticewasnotgiven.465

2.4.1. Grounds for granting preliminary injunctive reliefThe main principle upon which courts will grant any type of preliminary injunctive relief is whether the grant of such areliefwouldbe‘justandconvenient’.466Thelawestablishesthefollowingspecificgroundsforeachtypeofrelief.

The grounds for issuing an interim injunction are set out in the leading case of American Cyanamid v Ethicon.467Accordingtotheruling,whendeterminingwhetherornottograntaninteriminjunction,thecourtshouldassessthefollowingmatters.First, isthereaserious,orarguablequestiontobetried?468 In other words, there should not be any doubt that the claim is frivolous or vexatious. Furthermore,thestrengthofthecasemeritsisnotrelevant,sotheassessmentshouldnotinvolvea‘mini-trial’.Thethreshold at this stage is considered to be rather low.469 Second, is it fair togrant interim relief?Thiselementrequiresafurtheranalysisofthefollowingconsiderations:

(a) Will damages be an adequate remedy to the plaintiffs if these are recovered at trial?470

This involves an analysis of types of damages that are likely to occur. If damages are an adequate remedy, then the injunctionwill not be granted. Therefore, the claimantmust be truly unable to be compensated with money alone, and the mere difficulty in quantification isnotsufficient.471

(b) Balance of convenience. At this stage the court will take into account particular factual circumstancesinwhichtheinjunctionissought,andwillthenconsiderwherethebalanceofjustice liesindecidingwhethertogranttheinjunction.Incaselaw,thesearesometimesreferredtoas‘special factors’.472 Where such factors remain evenly balanced, the court is prudent to preserve the‘statusquo’.

(c) The merits of the case. This requires the assessment of the likelihood of success of the claim (theso-called‘mini-trial’).Thislastelementisconsideredonlyasalastresortinasituationin whichtheforegoingfactorsimplyequalpositionoftheparties.Generally,courtstendtomitigate thebalanceofconvenienceelementbyallowingananalysisof themeritsof thecase, i.e. the strengthoftheplaintiff’sargumentsincaseswhereitisdifficulttostrikeajustrulingonthebasis of the convenience approach.473

Someadditional factorsmay also be taken into consideration. For instance, the conduct of the partiesbeforelitigationand,inparticular,whethertherewasanydelayonthepartoftheplaintiff,474 whether the respondent had started patent revocation proceedings before launching allegedly infringing goods on the market,475 as well as a possible infringement of the freedom of expression.476Furthermore,inpatentdisputesoutsideofthepharmaceuticalandagrochemicalsfield,damagestotheclaimantandafinalinjunctionarealmostalwaysadequate,andthereforeinteriminjunctionsareusuallyrefused.477Inthepharmaceuticalandagrochemicalsfield,ontheotherhand,thecomplexregulatorysystemforproductapprovalandthesevereand irretrievable price decrease that follows after the introduction of a new entrant into a protected market hasledtoageneralrequirementthatifthedefendanthasnotfully‘clearedtheway’ofathirdpartypatent,an interim injunction is more likely to be granted.478

463 ibid Rule 25.3(2).464 ibid Rule 25.3(1).465 ibid Rule 25.3(3).466 Section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1984.467 American Cyanamid (n 454) 396.468 MirageStudiosandOthersvCounter-FeatClothingCompanyLimitedandAnother[1991]F.S.R.145,152.469 JohnLeubsdorf,‘TheStandardforPreliminaryInjunctions’[1978]91(3)HarvardLawReview525-566,539.470 HappyCamperProductionsLtdvBBC[2019]EWHC558(Ch).471 MolnlyckeHealthCareAb&AnorvBSN[2009]EWHC3370(Pat).472 AmericanCyanamid(n454)396,409.473 ibid153,accordingtowhichthejudgeheld:‘Ithereforeholdthatifthiscaseweretogototrialtheplaintiffwouldestablishhisrightinlawtocomplain ofpassingoff,andonthosegrounds,sincethebalanceofconvenienceissonicelybalanced,willgranttheinterlocutoryinjunctionaskedforinthiscase.’474 HappyCamperProductionsLtdvBBC(n470).475 LesLaboratoiresServiervKRKAPolskaSpZoO[2006]EWHC2453.476 Section12(3)oftheHumanRightsAct1998.477 ‘Interiminjunctions’(LexisPSL)PracticeNote.478 SmithKlineBeechamplcandothersvApotexEuropeLtdandothers[2006]IP&T912;SmithklineBeechamplcvGenerics(UK) Ltd[2001]AllER(D)325(Oct).

UNITED

KINGDOM


Furthermore,therearecertainmodificationsandexceptionsapplicabletoIPrightsonly.Inparticular,wherean interim injunctionwould be determinative of the action, the American Cyanamid test should not befollowed,andthecourtshouldthusassessthecaseinaccordancewithitsmerits.479

Freezingorders,describedasa‘nuclearweapon’480ofthelaw,areseenasaratherextremeanddraconianmeasure.481Intheassessmentofthegrounds,thecourtretainsitsdiscretion.Inthisrespect,anapplicationwillberefused if the injusticethatwouldbecausedtotherespondentoutweighsthebenefitthatwouldbegainedbytheapplicant.Furthermore,theconductoftheapplicantwillalsobetakenintoaccount:theyshouldactreasonably,conscionablyandwithoutunduedelay.482 Case law has laid down the following six conditionsforafreezinginjunctiontobegranted:483

i. Theapplicantmusthaveacauseofaction,thatis,anunderlyinglegalorequitableright:‘apre-existing causeofactionagainstthedefendantarisingoutofaninvasion,actualorthreatenedbyhim,ofalegal or equitable right of the plaintiff for the enforcement of which the defendant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court’.484Thecourtcannotgrantafreezingorderunlesstheapplicanthasacause ofaction;apossiblefuturecauseofactionwillnotbesufficient.485

ii. Englishcourtsmusthavejurisdictiontograntafreezingorder.Thecourtmusteitherhavejurisdiction to hear the substantive claim or have a statutory power to grant the order.

iii. Theapplicantmusthaveagoodarguablecase.Thecourtmustbesatisfiedthattheapplicanthasagood arguablecasethatheorsheisseekingtosupportwiththefreezingorder.Thismaybecounterclaimed. Whileitisnotnecessarytoestablishthattheclaimis‘boundtosucceed’orhasmorethana50% chanceofsuccess,acasethatisnomorethanarguableisalsonotsufficient.486Whenanalysingthis element the court takes into account any suggested defence to the claim.487Forexample,wherethe underlying claim in support of which the injunction had been sought was based on the proposition thatthefindingsofaforeigncourtwerewrong,thecourtdidnotacceptthatthecasewasagood arguableone,assuchaclaimcouldnotsucceedunlessanduntiltheforeigncourtorderwasoverturned.488

iv. The existence of assets. The applicant must show prima facie evidence that the respondent has assetswithinthejurisdiction.Iftheassetswithinthejurisdictionareinsufficienttomeettheclaim, thecourtmayorderaninjunctionoverassetsinspecificcountries,oraworldwidefreezingorder.489

v. Risk of dissipation. The claimant must show either (a) that there is a real risk that a judgement will notbesatisfied, i.e. there isa real risk that,unless restrainedby injunction, thedefendantwill dissipateordisposeofhisorherassetsotherthanintheordinarycourseofbusiness,490 or (b) unlesstherespondentisrestrainedbyinjunction,assetsarelikelytobedealtwithinsuchawayas tomake enforcement of any award or judgementmore difficult, unless those dealings can be justifiedbasedonnormalandproperbusinesspurposes.491 The court applies an objective test and considers theeffectof the respondent’sactions,nothisorher intent.The test isnotoneofa probability of dissipation.492Riskofdissipationisoftendifficulttoprove,soallcircumstancesof thecasearetakenintoaccount.Inpractice,thecourtsmaybepreparedtograntafreezingorder eveniftheevidenceofriskofdissipationis‘lessthancompelling’.493

vi. The applicant must provide an undertaking in damages.494

479 Bently and Sherman (n 382) 1216.480 BankMellatvNikpour(1985)FSR87.481 ‘Freezingorders:whatmustbeproved?’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber5-567-4066.482 ibid.483 ibid.484 TheSiskina[1979]AC210perLordDiplock[256].485 SteamshipMutualUnderwritingAssociation(Bermuda)LtdvThakurShippingCo[1986]2Lloyd’sRep439(CA).486 TheNiedersachsen[1983]1WLR1412.487 KazakhstanKagazyplcandothersvArip[2014]EWCACiv381.488 IrishResponseLtdvDirectBeautyProductsLtdandanother[2011]EWHC37(QB).489 RasAlKhaimahInvestmentAuthorityvBestfortDevelopmentLLP[2017]EWCACiv1014,wheretheCourtofAppealhasclarifiedthatthecorrect testforshowingthatadefendanthasassetsthatwouldbecaughtbyaworldfreezingorderiswhethertheapplicanthasgroundsforbelievingthat suchassetsexist,andnotwhetherthedefendantislikelytohavesuchassets.490 The Niedersachsen (n 486).491 MotorolaCreditCorporationvUzanandothers[2003]EWCACiv752.492 CaringTogetherLtdvBausoandothers[2006]EWHC2345(Ch)(SeeBriggsJ).493 MacleishLittlestoneCowan&KempvHajibbasi[2006]EWHC3580(Ch).494 DetailsonthiscanbefoundinSection2.4.3.

UNITED

KINGDOM


Further,consideringthedraconiannatureofthemeasure,495 search orders will be made only if the matter is urgent or otherwise desirable in the interest of justice.496Beforeanorderisgranted,thecourtsrequireclaimants to show that they have a particularly strong case of infringement on its face, and that thepotential damage to them is very serious. The claimant must also provide evidence that the defendant has incriminating material in their possession and that there is a real possibility that the material will be destroyed.497 The search order is subject to some procedural safeguards such as the need for a supervising solicitor (unconnected with the applicant) who is experienced in the operation of search orders.498

Finally,deliveryupordersareonlyavailableinthecourseofwrongfulinterferencewiththegoods.499 The court hasdiscretionastowhethertoissuesuchorder.Whendecidingwhethertomakeanapplicationfordeliveryup,thepartiesshouldconsiderwhetherthegoodsare,ormaybecome,thesubjectmatterofproceedingsforwrongfulinterference,aswellaswhetherthereisagoodarguablecaseforthecourttomaketheorder.500 There isno requirement for urgency, so thepartydoesnothave to show that thegoodsmaybe lostordestroyediftheorderisnotmade.Eventually,thecourtwillbalancetheconsiderationsofbothsides.501

2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuitAnapplicationforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefcanbemadebeforesubmittingalawsuit.Ingeneral,thecourtmaygrantapreliminaryremedybeforeaclaimhasbeenmadeonlyifthematterisurgent,oritisotherwise desirable to do so in the interests of justice.502Forinstance,suchurgencywillbepresentifthereis a real risk that funds will be dissipated or evidence will be destroyed.503 Ifarequestforapreliminaryinjunctive relief concerningan IP right isfiledbeforesubmitting the lawsuit, theapplicationshouldbemade to the court that will consider the case on its merits.504

2.4.3. Cross-undertakingUnlessspecifieddifferentlyby thecourt,PracticeDirection25Astates thatanyorder foran injunction,freezing order or search order must contain an undertaking by the applicant to the court to pay anydamageswhichtherespondentmaysustainandwhichthecourtconsiderstheapplicantshouldpay,i.e.a cross-undertaking.505Moreover,when thecourtmakesanorder foran injunctionor freezingorder, itshould consider whether to require the applicant to pay any damages sustained by a person other than therespondent,includinganotherpartytotheproceedingsoranyotherpersonwhomaysufferlossasaconsequence of the order.506Inthecontextoffreezingorders,wheretherearedoubtsaboutanapplicant’sresources,thecourthasdiscretiontorequireeithersecurityorthepaymentofmoneyintothecourtaccounttofortifytheundertaking.ThispracticederivesfromtheUKcommercialcourt,buthassincebeenapplieduniversally in all divisions.507 In essence,where the party is not able to show sufficient assets for thepurposeoftheundertakings,particularlytheundertakingindamages,apartymayberequiredtoreinforcethe undertakings by providing security.508 The form of security is within the judge’s discretion and may forexampleincludeabondissuedbyaninsurancecompanyorastand-bycreditbyafirst-classbank.509 Alternatively,thecourtmayrequireanundertakingfromamorefinanciallysecurepersonorbody.510 As to theassessmentofdamages,ordinarycontractualrulesapply,withtheexemplaryoraggravateddamagesbeing available if the applicant acted oppressively.511

495 UniversalThermosensorsvHibben[1992]FSR361.496 Rule25.2(b)CPR.497 TheapplicantforafreezingordershoulddiscloseallmaterialfactsasperCPRPracticeDirection25A,[3.3].498 ibid[7.2].499 Section4(1)oftheTorts(InterferencewithGoods)Act1977;Rule25.1(e)CPR.500 HowardEPerryvBritishRailwaysBoard[1980]2AllER579.501 ‘Preservingpropertyandinterimdeliveryupofgoods’(LexisPSL)PracticeNote.502 ibid.503 AndrewPerkins,‘Guidetoinjunctions’(Ashfords.co.uk,5March2018)accessed23September2020. <https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and-media/general/guide-to-injunctions>504 Ibid;seeRule23.2CPRaccordingtowhichapplicationsshouldbedone‘tothecourtwhereitislikelythattheclaimtowhichtheapplicationrelates willbestarted,unlessthereisagoodreasontomaketheapplicationtoadifferentcourt’.505 Paragraph5.1ofPracticeDirection25A.506 ibid[5.2.].507 ‘Undertakingindamages’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber5-204-1987.508 HMCourts&TribunalsService,‘TheCommercialCourtGuide’(2017)<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/672422/The_Commercial_Court_Guide_new_10th_Edition_07.09.17.pdf>accessed23September2020,F15.4(a).509 ibid F15.4(b).510 ‘Freezingorders:whatmustbeproved?’(n456).511 Hoffmann-LaRoche&CovSecretaryofState[1975]AC295,perLordDiplockwhoelaboratesthat‘theassessmentofdamagesismadeuponthesame basis as that upon which damages for breach of contract would be assessed if the undertaking had been a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant …’

UNITED

KINGDOM


Inrarecases,anapplicantinfinancialhardshipmaybeabletopersuadethecourttograntapreliminaryinjunctive reliefwithoutprovidingcross-undertaking.For instance, inAllen v Jambo Holdings Ltd,512 the courthasruledthatmereinabilitytogiveacross-undertakingwillnotprecludethegrantofarelief.However,this authority is not applied regularly in practice.513 There are two exceptional types of cases in which an undertakingindamageswillnotberequired:(i)casesbroughtbytheCrown,alocalauthority,publicbodyorofficeholderwhenbringingproceedingstoenforcethelaw(asopposedtobringingproceedingsfortheirownfinancialbenefit),and(ii)matrimonialcasesnotinvolvingpropertyrights.514

2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiativeA preliminary injunctive relief may be discharged before the final decision is delivered by consent oftheparties,bythecourt,oruponarespondent’sapplication.515 There is a variety of grounds on which a preliminaryinjunctivereliefcanberevoked,includingthefollowing:516

1) theinjunctionwasgrantedwithoutnoticedespitethefactthatonewasrequired;2) inthecontextofanapplicationwithoutnotice,aninconsistencyemergedbetweentheclaim andthewrittenevidenceprovidedonanapplicationwithoutnotice;3) theclaimantfailedtocomplywiththeundertakingsincorporatedintotheorder;4) theorderhadanoppressiveeffect;5) therewasamaterialchangeincircumstances;6) therewasanunreasonableinterferencewiththerightsofinnocentthirdparties;7) wheretheclaimisstruckoutfornon-paymentofthefeespayableatallocationor listing,the interim injunctionwilllapse14daysaftertheclaimisstruckout;8) where there is a serious delay by the applicant in pursuing the action.517

Apartfromtheabove,thecourtcansuspendtheoperationofareliefatanytimeinordertoensurethattheoperation is just and convenient (or proportionate).518

2.5. Security for costsRule25(2)CPRgovernsthegrantingofsecurityforcostsinallcivilcases.Adefendanttoanyclaimmayapply for security for his or her costs in the proceedings.519 Such application must be supported by written evidence.520AccordingtoRule25.13CPR,thecourtmaymakeanorderforsecurityforcostsunderRule25.12CPRif,havingregardtoallthecircumstancesofthecase,itissatisfiedthatitisjusttomakesuchanorder.Inaddition,somefurtherconditionsaresetforgrantingsecurityforcosts,forexampleiftheclaimantisacompanyorotherbody (whether incorporated insideoroutside theUnitedKingdom)and there isareason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so.521Incasethecourtmakesanorderforsecurity,ithasdiscretionwithregardtotheamountofsecurity,themannerinwhichandtime within which the security must be given.522

Therulesareslightlymodifiedinrelationtoapplicationsmadebythedefendantagainstsomeoneotherthan the claimant.523Inparticular,inadditiontotherequirementthatthecourtmustbesatisfiedthatitisjusttomakesuchanorder,theordermayonlybemadeif,havingregardtoallthecircumstancesofthecase,thecourtissatisfiedthatthepersonagainstwhomtheorderissought:(a)hasassignedtherighttotheclaimtotheclaimantwithaviewtoavoidingthepossibilityofacostsorderbeingmadeagainsthim;or(b)hascontributed or agreed to contribute to the claimant’s costs in return for a share of any money or property which the claimant may recover in the proceedings.

512 [1980]1WLR1252.513 ‘Injunctions:anoverview’byStuartRitchieQC,FountainCourtChambersandJamesBickfordSmith,LittletonChambers’(n453).514 ibid.515 ibid.516 StuartSimeandDerekFrench(Eds.),Blackstone’sCivilPractice2019(NewEdition,NineteenthEdition,OxfordUniversityPress2019)410.517 HytracConveyorsLtdvConveyorsInternationalLtd[1983]1WLR44.518 Sime and French (n 516) 406.519 Rule25.12(1)CPR.520 ibid rule 25.12(2).521 ibid rule 25.13(2).522 ibid rule 25.12(3).523 ibid rule 25.14(1).

UNITED

KINGDOM


2.6. Cassation in small value claimsIngeneral,theCourtofAppealallowsappealfromthefinaldecisionsoftheHighCourt,irrespectiveofthevalueoftheclaim,onlyifitraises‘animportantpointofprincipleorpractice’orifthereisa‘compellingreason’ for the court to hear it.524 The Supreme Court will admit an appeal against a decision of the Court ofAppeal,irrespectiveofthevalueoftheclaims,onlyifitraisesanarguablepointoflawofgeneralpublicimportance.525Exceptionally,inparticularlyimportantcases,appealscanbebroughtfromadecisionoftheHighCourtdirectlytotheSupremeCourt(alsocalled‘leapfrogappeal’),ingeneralonthegroundsthata point of law of general public importance is involved.526

Withrespecttosmallvalueclaims,aswasnotedabove,therearetwoavailabletrackswithintheIPEC:themulti-track,i.e.thedefaultoptionforIPcases,andthesmallclaimtrack.527 For cases to fall within the lattertrack,thevalueoftheclaimshouldnotexceed£10,000.528 Such claims are decided by the district judges.529 The judgements made in the small claims track are appealed to the multi-track section of the IPEC,i.e.totheso-calledenterprisejudge.530Thedecisionsoftheenterprisejudge,inturn,arereviewedby theCourtofAppeal,whichactsas thecourtof cassation in thiscase.531 The ‘leapfrogappeals’ totheSupremeCourtareonlypermittedagainst thedecisionsof theenterprise judge;however, thefirstinstance decisions of the district judge cannot be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.532

524 Paragraph5AofPracticeDirection52C.525 UKSupremeCourt,PracticeDirectionApplicationsforPermissiontoAppeal[3.3.3].526 PursuanttoSection12(1)oftheAdministrationofJusticeAct1969,adirectappealtotheSupremeCourtagainstthedecisionoftheHighCourt maybepermittedifeitherso-called‘relevantconditions’or‘alternativeconditions’aresatisfied.AccordingtoSection12(3)oftheAdministration ofJusticeAct, relevantconditionexists if ‘apointof lawofgeneralpublic importance is involved inthatdecisionandthatpointof laweither (a)relateswhollyormainlytotheconstructionofanenactmentorofastatutoryinstrument,andhasbeenfullyarguedintheproceedingsandfully consideredinthejudgmentofthejudgeintheproceedings,or(b)isoneinrespectofwhichthejudgeisboundbyadecisionoftheCourtofAppeal oroftheSupremeCourtinpreviousproceedings,andwasfullyconsideredinthejudgmentsgivenbytheCourtofAppealortheSupremeCourt (as thecasemaybe) in thosepreviousproceedings’.UnderSection12(3)(A)of thestatute, alternativeconditionsexistwhere ‘apointof law of general public importance is involved in the decision and (a) the proceedings entail a decision relating to a matter of national importance or considerationofsuchamatter,(b)theresultoftheproceedingsissosignificant(whetherconsideredonitsownortogetherwithotherproceedings orlikelyproceedings)that,intheopinionofthejudge,ahearingbytheSupremeCourtisjustified,or(c)thejudgeissatisfiedthatthebenefitsof earlierconsiderationbytheSupremeCourtoutweighthebenefitsofconsiderationbytheCourtofAppeal’.527 Foradetaileddiscussiononthedifferencebetweenthetwo,aswellastheconditionsunderwhichcaseswillfallwithinthesmallclaimtrack, refer to Section 2.1. 528 Rule63.27CPR.529 ibid Rule 63.19(2).530 PracticeDirection52A.531 Halsbury’sLawsofEngland,vol.12A(2015),24.AppealsandReferences,1515.Introduction,footnote17.532 Section 15(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969.

UNITED

KINGDOM


PART III – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – GERMANY


1.1. Structure of the judicial system and the IP courtInGermany,disputesconcerningIParehandledbythegeneraljudiciaryandbytheFederalPatentsCourt(‘Bundespatentgericht’, BPatG).533 The Constitution of the Courts Act 1975 (CCA)534 divides the general judiciaryintothelocalcourts(‘Amtsgerichte’),theregionalcourts(‘Landgerichte’),thehigherregionalcourts(‘Oberlandesgerichte’)andtheFederalHighCourtofJustice(‘Bundesgerichtshof’,BGH).535Presently,thereare638local,115regionaland24higherregionalcourts.536Whilethelocalcourtsactasfirstinstancecourts,theregionalcourtsactasbothfirstinstancecourtsandascourtsofappealreviewingcertaindecisionsofthelocal courts.537 The higher regional courts review appeals against decisions of the local and regional courts.538 TheBGHisthefinalinstancecourtthatreviewsappealsagainstthedecisionsofthehigherregionalcourts539 andactsasthecourtofthefinalinstanceinregistrableIPrightsvalidityproceedings.540

Atfirst instance, themajorityof IPdisputesareexclusivelydealtwithbycertain regionalcourts.Thisstemsfromvariousprovisions inthesubstantiveIP lawsthatauthorisethefederalstategovernmentstobestowjurisdictionoverdisputesconcerningcertaintypesofIPrightstooneoftheregionalcourtswithin its territory.541 Based on these provisions the state governments have designated certain courts in accordancewiththeprincipleofthe‘concentrationofjurisdiction’.542Inaddition,someofthesmallerstategovernmentshavetransferred,onthebasisofagreementsconcludedwithotherstates,thejurisdictionoftheirregionalcourtsinIPcasestothecourtsofotherstates.543 The state governments may introduce suchaconcentrationof jurisdictionsolutioninrelationtooneormoretypesofIPcases.Ontheotherhand,ifaparticulartypeofIPcaseisnotcoveredbytheaboveconcentrationarrangement, itremainsunder the general rules of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, thismay lead to one type of IP case, forexample,trademarks,tobeallocatedtoseveralregionalcourtswithinagivenstate,whileanothertypeofIPcase,forexample,patents,maybeallocatedtoonlyoneregionalcourtwithinthatstate.

Consequently,thishasresultedin21regionalcourtsdealingexclusivelywithtrademarksand12regionalcourts having exclusive jurisdiction over patents.544Asfarascopyrightandrelatedrightsareconcerned,the state governments are entitled to introduce such concentration of jurisdiction not only at the regional level,butalsoatthelocalcourtslevel.545

533 TheGerman terminology referring to thegeneral judiciary is ‘ordentlicheGerichtsbarkeit’,which is contrastedwith thespecialised judiciary. Thegeneraljudiciaryiscompetentinrelationtoallcivil(includingIPandcommercial)andcriminaldisputes.Itdoesnotcoveradministrative, financial,labourandsocialcases(foradiagramofthesystemseeBeck.de,‘ÜbersichtüberdenGerichtsaufbauinderBundesrepublikDeutschland’ (Beck.de, October 2002) <https://rsw.beck.de/rsw/downloads/gesetzgebung/Gerichtsaufbau.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020). Germanyisafederalstatecomprisedof16unitedstates(‘Länder’or‘Lands’).TherelationbetweentheFederalgovernmentandtheLandsis regulatedinthesecondpartoftheGermanConstitutionandisbasedonthetwobasicprinciples:superiority(Article31oftheGermanConstitution, whereby federal lawhassupremacyover the lawof theLands) andsubsidiarity of federal law (Article 30, according towhich theLandsare competent in any public matter that was not dedicated to the federal government). The scope of competence of the Land governments includes administrationofnon-federalcourts,i.e.thelocal,regionalandhigherregionalcourts,administrativecourts(withtheexceptionoftheFederal AdministrativeCourt)andfinancialcourts(withtheexceptionoftheFederalFinancialCourt);somemattersconcerningthestatusofnon-federal judges,however,arelefttothefederalgovernment(Article74(1)oftheGermanConstitution).534 TheGermanterminologyis‘Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz’.535 §12CCA.536 Bmjv, ‘Gerichte des Bundes und der Länder am 15 Mai 2017 (ohne Dienst- und Ehrengerichtsbarkeit)’ (Bundesministerium der Justiz und Verbraucherschutz,15May2017)<https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF/Anzahl_der_Gerichte_des_Bundes_und_der_Laender. pdf;jsessionid=A712E1604E80C864D5C943979A325E1F.1_cid289?__blob=publicationFile&v=2>accessed23September2020.537 §72(1)CCA.538 ibid§119.539 ibid§133.540 §100 of thePatentAct 1980 (‘Patentsgesetz’),whereby theBGHacts as a second instance in appeals against decisions from theBPatG. Thetermusedwhenadecisionisexaminedonappealinthethirdinstanceis‘Revision’,whichisatypeoflegalremedyavailableagainstfinal decisionsofthelocal,regionalandhigherregionalcourts.Itistranslatedas‘appealonpointsoflaw’asper§133CCA(ThetranslationoftheCCA provisioncanbefoundhere:<https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gvg/index.html>accessed23September2020).541 § 143(2) of the Patent Act 1980; §38(2) of the Variety Protection Act 1997 (‘Sortenschutzgesetz’); § 27(2) of the Utility Models Act 1986 (‘Gebrauchsmustergesetz’);§52(2)oftheDesignsAct2004(‘Designgesetz’);§39oftheEmployeeInventionsAct2009(‘Arbeitnehmererfindergesetz’) inconjunctionwith§143(2)ofthePatentAct1980,§140(2)oftheTradeMarksAct1994(‘GesetzüberdenSchutzvonMarkenundsonstigen Kennzeichen’);1987,§11(2)TopographiesProtectionAct1987(‘Halbleiterschutzgesetz’)inconjunctionwith§27(2)oftheUtilityModelsAct1986; §13(2)oftheUnfairCompetitionAct2004(‘GesetzgegendenunlauterenWettbewerb’).542 ThomasKaess,‘§143’inAlfredKeukenschrijver,RudolfBusse(Eds.)Patentgesetz(8threvisedandexpandededition,DeGruyter2016)2378.543 RudolfNirk,EikeUllmannandKarlBruchhausen,Patent-,Gebrauchsmuster-undSortenschutzrecht(Müller2007)156.544 GermanAssociationForLegalProtectionandCopyright,‘Gerichtszuständigkeiten’(GRUR,2017) <http://www.grur.org/de/grur-atlas/gerichte/gerichtszustaendigkeiten.html>accessed23September2020.545 ThisisthecasesincecopyrightandrelatedrightsaretheonlyfieldofIPinwhichthelocalcourtsarecompetent.Asfarasthelocalcourtsareconcerned see§105(2)Urheberrecht(hereinafterreferredtoas‘CopyrightAct1965’);seealso§105(1)oftheCopyrightAct1965,withrespecttotheregionalcourts.

GER

MAN

Y


Aswasmentionedabove,theregionalcourtsarethemainforaforIPdisputes.Withintheirstructureonemay distinguish between the general civil chambers and the two special types of civil chambers relevant forIPcases,i.e.thespecialisedIPchambersandcommercialchambers.546Itisnotmandatorytoestablisheithertypeofthesetwospecialcivilchambers;thecreationofsuchchambersdependsonthedecisionof,respectively,thecourts’praesidium547andthestategovernments.Themajorityoftheregionalcourts,whichweredesignatedbythestategovernmentsasexclusivelycompetenttoadjudicateIPdisputesbasedontheconcentrationofjurisdiction,havethespecialisedIPchambers.ThesespecialisedIPchambersdonothaveanexpressstatutorybasis,andareestablishedina‘caseallocationplan’,anadministrativedocumentissuedbythepraesidiumofaregionalcourt,548anddealwithalltypesofIPdisputesassignedtothembythesecaseallocation plans. The creation of the commercial chambers is also not mandatory and is left to the discretion of the state governments.549UnlikethespecialIPchambers,thecommercialchambersareestablishedbythestategovernmentregulations,ratherthanbythecaseallocationplans.UndertheRulesofCivilProcedure(RCP),550 in addition to commercial disputes the commercial chambers may also deal with certain types ofIPdisputes,whichincludetrademarksandothersigns,551 unfair competition and registered designs.552 Oncethecommercialchamberhasbeenestablished,thesetypesofdisputesmaynotbeallocatedtootherchambersbyacaseallocationplan.Nevertheless,incertaincircumstances,thepartiesmaydecidetorefertheircasetoageneralcivilchamberoraspecialisedIPchamber,ifthelatterisestablished.553Therefore,theallocationbetweenthechambersdependsontheprovisionsoftheRCP,acaseallocationplanandthewilloftheparties.Tosumup,asageneralrule,allIPdisputesaredecidedbyageneralcivilchamber.However,ifthecaseallocationplanestablishesaspecialisedIPchamber,itwilldealwithallIPdisputesallocatedtoitintheplan.Inaddition,ifacommercialchamberisestablishedwithinthesameregionalcourt,thenthischamberwillhavejurisdictionoveralltrademarks,registereddesignsandunfaircompetitiondisputes.Thepartiesmay,however,requestthattheircaseistransferredfromthecommercialchambertothespecialisedIPchamberorthegeneralcivilchamberofthisregionalcourt.554ThespecialisedIPchamberscanalsobeestablishedinthehigherregionalcourts,555 but there are no commercial chambers in these courts.

TheBPatGisafirstinstancecourtwiththeexclusivejurisdictionovercertaintypesofIPcases,mostnotablyvalidity disputes.556ThejudgesoftheBPatGsitin27specialboards:sixNullityBoards,oneJuridicalandNullityBoardofAppeal,12TechnicalBoardsofAppeal,fiveBoardsofAppealforTradeMarks,oneBoardofAppealforTradeMarksandDesigns,oneBoardofAppealforUtilityModelsandoneBoardofAppealforPlantVarietycases.557AppealsfromtheBPatGarefiledwiththeBGH.

TheBGHhastwoIPspecialisedchamberswithinitsstructure:Chamber1thatdeals,amongotherthings,withappealsagainstthedecisionsoftheBPatGrelatedtocopyright,trademarksandunfaircompetition,andChamber10thatconsidersappealsagainstthedecisionsoftheBPatGrelatedtopatents,utilitymodels,plantvariety,topographies.558

546 §93(1)CCA;theGermanterminologyis‘KammernfürHandelssachen’.547 Apresidiumofaregionalcourtisabodycomprisingthepresidentofthecourtora‘supervisingjudge’,whoactsasachairperson,andaspecified number of other judges elected by the judges of the court. The number of the elected judges depends on the overall number of judges. Presidiaplayasignificantroleintheorganisationofthecourt(see§21a-jCCA).548 Acaseallocationplan,promulgatedforcourts’internalpurposes,setsoutthecompositionofthecourt,thedivisionofjudgesbetweenvarious chambers,and the rulesofallocationofdisputesbetween thechambers (§21eCCA);BerndLorenz, ‘BehördenundGerichte fürgewerbliche Schutzrechte’ (St-sozien, 2010) <https://www.st-sozien.de/fileadmin/user_upload/veroeffentlichungen/Lorenz/JURA_2010_46.pdf> accessed 23September2020;LandgerichtDüsseldorf,‘GeschäftsverteilungsplanfürdasGeschäftsjahr2020’(LandgerichtDüsseldorf,17December2019) <https://www.lg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/aufgaben/geschaeftsverteilung/gvp-_rd_2020.pdf>accessed23September2020.549 ibid§93(1).550 Zivilprozessordnung§348.551 TheGermantrademarkslawprotectsnotonlytrademarkssensu stricto,butalsootherrightsvestedinsigns,suchas‘commercialdesignations’ (‘geschäftliche Bezeichnungen’)andindicationofgeographicaloriginaspertheTradeMarkAct1994,§1.552 §93,§95(1)(4)(c)and§95(1)(5)CCA.553 ibid§§96(1)and98(1)CCA.Theclaimantmightdecidetofileaclaimwhichwouldnormallybeheardbythecommercialchamberwithacivil (specialisedIP)chamber.Ifthatisthecase,therearetwowaysinwhichthecasemightproceed.Ifthedefendantacceptstheclaimant’schoice, thecaseisconsideredbythecivil(specialisedIP)chamber.Ifthedefendantopposes,thecasewillbetransferredtothecommercialchamber.554 The rulesof allocation, includingwhen thepartiesmay request the allocationof a dispute to ageneral civil or specialised IP chamber, are explained in Section 2.2.555 For example, inHamburg, the3rdcivil chamberdealswithpatents, utilitymodels, trademarks, employee inventionsandunfair competition, andthe5thcivilchamberdealswithcopyrightanddesigns(SeemoreatJustizportalHamburg, ‘Geschäftsverteilungsplan2020’(Justizportal Hamburg,2019)<https://justiz.hamburg.de/contentblob/14031672/91fd61040b1f08478506f9aa69a3673d/data/ geschaeftsverteilungsplan-holg-stand-01-07-2020.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020). In Munich, the 6th chamber handles patents, utility models,topographies,employees’inventions,trademarks,plantvarieties,designsandcopyrights,whilethe29thchamberdealswithdesigns, copyright, and additionally unfair competition (Seemore at Justizportal Bayern, ‘Geschäftsverteilungsplan 2020’ (Justizportal Bayern, 2019) <https://www.justiz.bayern.de/media/images/behoerden-und-gerichte/oberlandesgerichte/muenchen/gvp_2020.pdf>accessed23September2020.556 ForthediscussiononjurisdictionoftheBPatG,seeSection2.2.557 TheorganisationdiagramoftheBPatGisavailablehere:Bundespatentgericht,‘Bundespatentgericht–Jahresbericht2018’(Bundespatentgerichtde,July2019) <https://www.bundespatentgericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Presse/Jahresberichte/Jahresbericht2018_download.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5>, accessed23September2020,4.558 Bundesgerichtshof,‘Geschäftsverteilungsplan2019’(Bundesgerichtshofde,2019)<https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/ DE/DasGericht/GeschaeftsvertPDF/2020/geschaeftsverteilung2020.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3>accessed23September2020.

GER

MAN

Y


1.2. Criteria for selection of judgesThegeneralprovisionsenshrinedintheGermanConstitution,559theCCAandtheGermanJudiciaryAct,560 whichregulatethequalificationrequirements,aswellastherightsanddutiesofthejudges,561 apply to both federal562 and non-federal judges.563AccordingtotheConstitution,judgesofthefederalcourtsareselectedjointly by the competent federal minister564 and the committee for the selection of judges consisting of the competent state ministers and an equal number of members elected by the Bundestag.565 The process of appointingjudgesofthenon-federalcourtsisregulatedintheconstitutionsandstatutesofthestates;566 theonlyapplicablepieceoffederallawinthisregardistheConstitution,whichstatesthatstatejudgesmaybeselected,ifthelawofthestatethusprovides,jointlybythestateMinisterofJusticeandthecommitteefor the selection of judges.567 Inpractice, thestatesmayalsoapplyothersolutions,suchasnominatingcandidatesbythehigherregionalcourtofthestate,bytheministerofjustice,orjointlybythehigherregionalcourt,ministerofjusticeandattorneygeneral.568

UndertheGermanJudiciaryAct,thegeneralrequirementsforholdingjudicialofficeforboththefederalandnon-federalcourtsinclude,amongothers,thecapabilityofajudgetoupholdatalltimesthefreedemocraticbasicorder;thecandidatemustalsopossessthenecessarysocialskillsandhavepassedthefirststateexamination and concluded the subsequent preparatory period by taking the second state examination.569 Inadditiontocandidatesthatsatisfytheforegoingcriteria,othercandidates,suchasforexampleprofessorsoflaw,aredeemedtobeexofficioqualifiedtoholdjudicialoffice.570

ThereisnorequirementtopossessanyspecialIPortechnicalknowledgeforgeneraljudiciaryjudgeswhoconsiderIPdisputes.Nevertheless,mostoftheregionalcourtjudgesthatsitinthespecialIPchambersanddealwithIPdisputestypicallyareexperiencedinsuchmatters.ThesameappliestothejudgesofthespecialisedIPchambersofthehigherregionalcourtsandtheBGH,whousuallypreviouslyheldofficeinthespecialisedIPchambersoftheregionalcourtsbeforetheirappointmenttotheappellateorcassationinstances.Asfor thecommercialchamberswhichmayexistataregional level, inadditiontogeneralistjudgesthechambersmayalsoemploytheso-called‘honoraryjudges’,571 who are members of the business community and sit as lay members on a panel.As is the case with other judges, there are no additional requirements in relation to IP knowledge orexperience.Suchjudgesarerequired,amongotherthings,toberegisteredinthecommercialregisterorinthecooperativesregisterasamerchant,amemberoftheboardofmanagementormanagingdirectorofacorporateentity,orasanofficerwithapublicauthorityindicatedinastatute.572Moreover,aspecialresidentialrequirementappliestothehonoraryjudges,accordingtowhichsuchjudgesmustliveorhaveaseatoftheirbusiness,orbeanemployeeofabusinesswithitsseatorabranchestablishedinthedistrictof a regional court where they sit as judges.573

AuniquefeatureoftheBPatGisthatitsjudgesincludenotonlylawyers,butalsonaturalscientists,referredtoas‘technical’judges.574Infact,almosthalfoftheBPatGjudgespossessscientificortechnicalexpertise.575 Candidates for thepositionof technical judgemusthavepassedafinalexaminationata technicalor lifesciencefacultyataGermanuniversity,atechnicaloragriculturalschool,aminingacademy,oratanequivalentinstitutioninanEUMemberStateorinanEEAState.Thecandidatemustalsopossessatleastfiveyearsofexperienceinthefieldoftechnicalnaturalsciencecoupledwiththerequiredlegalknowledgeinthisrespect.576

559 ‘GrundgesetzfürdieBundesrepublikDeutschland’1949(hereinafterthe‘GermanConstitution’).560 ‘DeutschesRichtergesetz’1972(hereinafterthe‘GermanJudiciaryAct’).561 See,forinstance,Article97oftheGermanConstitutionand§25and38ffoftheGermanJudiciaryAct.562 JudgesoftheBGH,theFederalAdministrativeCourt,theFederalFinancialCourtandothercourtslistedinArticle95(1)oftheGermanConstitution.563 Theseincludethelocal,regionalandhigherregionalcourts.SeeArticle74(1)oftheGermanConstitution.564 A‘competentFederalMinister’meansaministercompetenttoparticipateintheselectionofjudgesinaccordancewiththefederalstatutorylaw; a‘competentstateMinister’means,accordingly,aministercompetenttoparticipateintheselectionofjudgesinaccordancewiththestatestatutorylaw.565 Article95(2)oftheGermanConstitution.566 DeutscherBundestag,‘AuswahlundWahlvonRichterninDeutschland’(2017)WD7-3000-098/17.567 Article98(4)oftheGermanConstitution.568 DeutscherBundestag,(n566)569 §9oftheGermanJudiciaryAct.570 ibid§7.571 TheterminologyinGermanis‘ehrenamtlicherRichter’.572 §109(1)(3)CCA,accordingtowhichsucharegistrationrequirementdoesnotapplyifthecandidatewasamemberofamanagementboardofa corporateentityestablishedunderpubliclawinrelationtowhichspecificregulationssetoutspecialarrangements.573 ibid§109(2).574 TheGermanterminologyis‘technischeMitglieder’(§65(2)ofthePatentAct1980).575 Bundespatentgericht, ‘Organisation’, <https://www.bundespatentgericht.de/DE/dasGericht/Organisation/organisation_node.html;jsessionid= EF724A830D0A694214C8F29F2E41AEE3.internet542>,accessed23September2020;formoreinformationseeSectionI.3LocationoftheIPcourt and number of judges.576 ibid§26(3)inconjunctionwith§65(2)ofthePatentAct1980.

GER

MAN

Y


Thetechnicaljudgessitonallcaseswhichrelatetothepropertiesofaninvention,forinstance,inproceedingsconcerninganappealagainstthedecisionsoftheGermanIPOfficerefusingtheregistrationofapatent.577 By contrast,theBoardsofAppealinalltrademarkdisputesarecomprisedexclusivelyoflegallytrainedjudges.578

Whiletherearenoformalrequirementsforthejudicialtraining,certaininitiativeshavebeenintroducedthatincludetheinitialtrainingofnewlyappointedjudges,579 and the continuing education of judges.580 The initial trainingforjudgesis,toalargeextent,informalandcarriedoutbytheirmoreexperiencedcolleagues,581 but may also take the form of compulsory seminars.582Theseminarscomprisethefollowingsubjectmatters:law,skills(forexamplerhetoricalskills,examiningwitnesses),organisationandinformationtechnology,andsomegeneraltopics(suchasdevelopmentsinsociety,legalandethicalproblems,etc.).583 For experienced judgestheparticipationinsuchseminarsisvoluntary.ThetrainingmaybeorganisedbytheGermanjudges’academy(‘Deutsche Richterakadamie’) or by the states.584

1.3. Location of the IP court and number of IP judgesAswasmentionedearlier,asaresultoftheconcentrationofjurisdiction,atfirstinstancetherearecurrently12regionalcourtsthathavejurisdictiontohearpatentinfringementcases,585 18 such courts consider design cases and 21 courts consider trade mark matters.586Yet, themajorityofcasesareheardby fourof thesecourts,theregionalcourtsofDüsseldorf,Hamburg,MannheimandMunich.587 The number of judges who deal withIPdisputesinthesecourtsvaries.Forexample,intheregionalcourtinDüsseldorftherearesixchambers,eachcomprisingthreeorfourjudges.Threeofthesechambersdealwithpatent,employees’inventions,utilitymodelsandplantvarietiesdisputes;onechamberdealswithcopyrightdisputes;onewithtrademarkdisputes;andonewithdesigns.TheoverallnumberofjudgesinthespecialisedIPchambersinDüsseldorfis22.588

InHamburg,thereare12judges589whositinfourchambersthatdealwithIPdisputes:twothree-judgechambersthathandledisputesconcerningvarioustypesof IP,590 one four-judge chamber that deals withcopyrightand ITmatters,andone three-judgechamber thatdealswithcopyrightmatters.591 InMannheim,therearesixIPjudgesdividedintotwothree-judgechambersthatheardisputesconcerningvarioustypesofIP.AttheMunichregionalcourt,thereare10IPjudgeswhositinthefourspecialisedIPchambersthathandledisputesconcerningvarioustypesof IP: twofour-judgechambersandtwothree-judge chambers.

Thereare24higherregionalcourts.Someofthem,inparticularthosethatreviewthedecisionsoftheregionalcourtsthatareexclusivelycompetenttodealwith IPdisputes,havespecialisedIPchambers.ThenumberofjudgesinthespecialisedIPchambersinthesecourtsalsovaries.Forexample,therearethreechambers(onethree-judge,onefour-judgeandonefive-judgechamber)dealingwithIPdisputes

577 ibid§67(1)(2a).578 §67(1)oftheTradeMarksAct1994.579 JohannesRiedel,‘TrainingandrecruitmentofjudgesinGermany’[2013]5(2)InternationalJournalforCourtAdministration1.580 JohannesRiedel,‘Recruitment,ProfessionalEvaluationandCareerofJudgesandProsecutorsinGermany’,Recruitment,professionalevaluation andcareerofjudgesandprosecutorsinEurope(LoScarabeo2005)<http://www.difederico-giustizia.it/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ recruitment-evaluation-and-career.pdf>113ff.581 ibid 93.582 ibid.583 ibid 116-117.584 ibid 113-114.585 These are located in Düsseldorf, Munich, Nürnberg-Fürth, Hamburg, Mannheim, Frankfurt, Braunschweig, Berlin, Saarbrücken, Leipzig, MagdeburgandErfurt.586 ThefulllistofcompetentcourtsavailableonthewebsiteoftheGermanAssociationforLegalProtectionandCopyright(DeutscheVereinigung für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR)) <http://www.grur.org/de/grur-atlas/gerichte/gerichtszustaendigkeiten.html> accessed 23 September 2020).587 ‘PatentlitigationinGermany:overview’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber5-622-3450.588 LandgerichtDüsseldorf,(n548).589 LandgerichtHamburg,‘Geschäftsverteilungsplan2020’<https://justiz.hamburg.de/contentblob/14068492/e3d46acf7529dda13a73b6638764 dc04/data/geschaeftsverteilungsplan-2020-stand-08-07-2020.pdf>accessed23September2020.590 ThesearechamberNo.15andchamberNo.27thatdealwithpatents,utilitymodels,topographies,plantvarieties,trademarks,unfaircompetition.591 LandgerichtHamburg,(n589).592 LandgerichtMannheim,‘Geschäftsverteilungsplan2020’(Landgericht-mannheimde,6December2019)<https://landgericht-mannheim.justiz- bw.de/pb/site/jum2/get/documents/jum1/JuM/Landgericht%20Mannheim/LG%20MA%20GVP%202020.pdf>accessed23September2020.593 LandgerichtMünchen‘Geschäftsverteilungsplan2020’accessed23September2020. <https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/verfahren.php#geschaeftsverteilungsplan>594 ThehigherregionalcourtsarelocatedinHamm,Düsseldorf,Köln,München,Bamberg,Stuttgart,Karlsruhe,FrankfurtamMain,Dresden,Celle, Berlin,Nürnberg,Schleswig,Koblenz,Brandenburg,Oldenburg,Naumburg,Jena,Hamburg,Rostock,Zweibrücken,Braunschweig,Saarbrücken, Bremen(seeUlrichFranke[in]DieStrafprozessordnungunddasGerichtsverfassungsgesetz.GroßkommentarDeGruyter2010,577).

GER

MAN

Y


at thehigher regionalcourt inDüsseldorf,595 twofour-judgechambers in theHamburghigher regionalcourt,596andtwofour-judgechambersattheMunichhigherregionalcourt.597

TheBPatG is located inMunich and currently employs 102 judges, 55 ofwhompossess scientific ortechnical expertise.598Finally, theBGHissituated inKarlsruheand isdivided into17BoardsofAppeal(theso-called‘Senaten’).Itcurrentlyemploys134judges.Twooutofthe17BGHBoards(thefirstandthetenth)arespecialisedinIPrights,andeachboardcompriseseightjudges.599

II. Rules of procedureInGermany,civil,commercialandIPdisputesaregovernedbytheRulesofCivilProcedure(RCP),600 and the Constitution of Courts Act (CCA).601Inaddition,thesubstantivelawstatutes,suchasthePatentAct1980,602 theCopyrightAct1965,603 theTradeMarksAct1994,604UtilityModelsAct1986,605DesignsAct2004,606TopographiesProtectionAct1987,607PlantVarietiesAct1997,608EmployeeInventionsAct2009,609 andtheUnfairCompetitionAct2010610 also contain certain rules of procedure.2.1. Composition of the court in IP casesAccordingtotheRulesofCivilProcedure,asadefaultoptionatfirst instance(in the localandregionalcourts)IPcasesareheardbyasinglejudge;611inpractice,however,thecourts’praesidiumoftenprovidethatIPcasesaretobedealtwithbyapanelofthreejudgesinaccordancewiththeprinciplesdescribedbelow.Whenasinglejudgeisinchargeofacase,heorshedirectlydealswiththecasewithoutseekingany prior authorisation from the chamber he or she is part of.612 This principle does not apply to the commercial chambers, in relation towhich special ruleswere introduced, as discussed below. Aswasalreadymentioned,inrelationtothegeneralcivilandspecialisedIPchambersattheregionalcourts,somesolutionswereintroducedallowingforthecollegialconsiderationofcases.Specifically,acaseisconsideredbya three-judgepanel, insteadofasingle judge, if the twofollowingconditionsaresatisfied.First, thedisputemustinvolveoneofthesubjectmattersindicatedin§348RCP,whichcomprisesalltypesofIPmatters.613Second,therequirementofathree-judgepanelmustbeexplicitlysetoutinthecaseallocationplan of the respective court. The praesidium of a court may introduce a three-judge panel requirement to considercasesinvolvingdifficultandcomplexlegaldisputesthatrequireaspecialtraining,knowledgeorexperience;thus,accordingtotheGermanlegislatorallIPmattersmaypotentiallybeofsuchcomplexitythat they can be dealt with by a three-judge panel.614Inpractice,mostregionalcourts’praesidiumintroducethethree-judgeconsiderationofIPcases.615Ontheotherhand,ifaccordingtothestatutoryprovisionsoracaseallocationplanadisputemustbeconsideredbyathree-judgepanel,thecasemaystillbetransferredtoasinglejudge.Thisisallowedifacaseisnotcharacterisedbyanyfactualorlegaldifficulty,ifthelegalaspectsofthecasedonotconstituteanyfundamentalsignificance,616 or where the oral arguments have not yet been heard on the merits of the case before the panel at the main hearing.617

595 Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, ‘Geschäftsverteilungsplan für das Geschäftsjahr 2020’ (Oberlandesgericht Duesseldorf, 18 December 2019) <https://www.olg-duesseldorf.nrw.de/aufgaben/geschaeftsverteilung/gvp_rechtsprechung/gvp_recht_2020/20191218_GVP_Richter_2020_ Endfassung.pdf>accessed23September2020.596 OberlandesgerichtHamburg(n555).597 OberlandesgerichtMünchen(n555).598 Bundespatentgericht (n 575). 599 Bundesgerichtshof (n 558).600 Zivilprozessordnung1950.601 Gerichtsverfassungsgericht1950.602 Patentgesetz1980.603 GesetzüberUrheberrechtundverwandteSchutzrechte1965.604 GesetzüberdenSchutzvonMarkenundsonstigenKennzeichen1994.605 Gebrauchsmustergesetz1986.606 Designgesetz2004.607 Halbleiterschutzgesetz1987.608 Sortenschutzgesetz1997.609 Arbeitnehmererfindergesetz2009610 GesetzgegendenunlauterenWettbewerb2010.611 §348(1)RCP.612 JohannesWittschier,‘§348’inHans-JoachimMusielak(Ed.),KommentarzurZivilprozessordnung(ZPO):mitGerichtsverfassungsgesetz (VahlenFranzGmbh2009)1185.613 §348(1)(2f)RCPinconjunctionwith§95(1)CCA,and§§48(1)(2)(i)and348(1)(2)(k)RCP,whichcoverstrademark,design,unfaircompetition, copyrightorrelatedrightdisputes,ormattersunderexclusivejurisdictionoftheregionalcourts,i.e.patents,utilitymodels,topography,plantvarieties.614 BundestagDrucksache14/472288ff.615 SeeWolfgangKellenterandBenediktMigdal,HengellerMueller,‘PatentlitigationinGermany:overview’PracticalLaw;WolfgangKellenter,Andrea Schlaffge,andAstridHarmsen,HengelerMueller‘TrademarklitigationinGermanyoverview’PracticalLaw.616 Acase isof fundamentalsignificancewherethedecision in thiscasewillchangetheprevious jurisprudenceof thecourtonthe legalmatter inquestion;factualandlegalcomplexityisnottakenintoaccount(Wittschier,(n612)1191).617 The transfer to a single judge will also be possible if another main hearing has been ordered. This could be the result of the issuance of a judgment incasesofreservationofrights,partialjudgment,orinterlocutoryjudgmentasper§348(a)(1)RCP.

GER

MAN

Y


Furthermore,asinglejudgeofageneralcivilchamberoraspecialisedIPchambermayrequestthatthecasebe transferred to a three-judge panel. The grounds for such a request depend on whether the single judge was in charge of the case from the beginning of the proceedings or whether the dispute was transferred tothejudgebythethree-judgepanelatsomelaterpoint.Ifthesinglejudgewasinchargefromthestart,he or she may refer the case to the three-judge panel if the case is characterised by special factual or legaldifficulties,or the legalproblem isofa fundamentalsignificance.618On theotherhand,where thecasewasinitiallyallocatedtoathree-judgepanelanditwasthentransferredtoasinglejudge,thesinglejudge may request the case to be transferred back to the three-judge panel if there is a material change ofcircumstances.Suchachangeofcircumstancesmustengenderspecialfactualorlegaldifficultiesorresultinthelegalproblembecomingfundamentallysignificantinthesenseexplainedabove.619Ineithercase,asinglejudgemayalsoreferacasetoathree-judgepanelifthisisrequestedbytheparties,onthebasis of any of the foregoing grounds.620Afterreceivingsucharequestfromasinglejudge,thepanelthendecides whether the prerequisites are met.621

Commercial chambers usually sit in a three-judge panel with one judge (the president of the panel) and twohonoraryjudges,whereinallthreejudgeshavethesamevotingrights.622 The president of the panel is responsibleforissuesrelatedtothemanagementofthecase,whichincludesreferrals,establishingthevalueoftheclaim,andcosts.623However,thepresidentalonecannotmakedecisionsadmeritum,andhisor her decision-making power as a single judge is limited to the admission of evidence.624Nevertheless,ifthepartiesthusagree,theymayauthorisethepresidenttodealwiththeentirecasealone,whichincludesdeciding on the merits of the case.625

Intheproceedingsconcerningpreliminaryinjunctivereliefs,thecompositionofthecourtisthesameasin the main proceedings.626However,inalltypesofchambersdiscussedabove,627 in cases of particular urgency,apreliminary injunctive reliefmaybe issuedby thepresidentofapanelalone,provided thatsuch a decision does not require a hearing. A case will be considered as particularly urgent where the delay resulting from the case being dealt with by a three-judge panel might endanger the purpose of the preliminary proceedings.628

In theBPatG, the rulingpanels have varyingnumbersof judges, for example theNullityBoards sit inpanelsoffive judges,while theJuridicalBoardofAppealsits inpanelsof three judges.At theappeallevel,thespecialIPchambersdeliverjudgementsinpanelsofthreejudges.629Finally,theBGHdeliversitsrulingsinIPdisputesinpanelsoffivejudges.630

2.2. Jurisdiction over IP casesAtfirst instance, the jurisdictionover IPdisputes isdividedbetweentheregionaland localcourts.Thejurisdictionisallocatedonthebasisoftwocriteria:(a)thevalueoftheclaims,and(b)thetypeoftheIPright.Astothefirstcriterion,thelocalcourtshavejurisdictiontoheardisputeswherethevalueofadisputedoesnotexceedEUR5,000.631DisputesinwhichthevalueoftheclaimexceedsEUR5,000fallunderthejurisdiction of the regional courts.632Under thesecondcriterion, the localcourts’ jurisdiction is limitedtodisputesconcerningcopyrightandrelatedrights.Accordingly,theregionalcourtshavetheexclusivejurisdiction,regardlessofthevalueofaclaim,overclaimsarisingfrom‘legalrelationships’establishedunderthePatentAct1980,633theEmployeeInventionsAct2009,634theUtilityModelsAct1986,635 the Trade

618 ibid§348(3);pleaserefertofootnote616forthemeaningof‘fundamentalsignificance’.619 ibid§348a(2).620 ibid§348(3)and§348a(2).621 ibid§348(3)and§348a(2)622 §105(1)and(2)CCA.623 §349(2)RCP.624 ibid§349(1).625 ibid§349(3).626 ibid§348.627 ibid§944.628 MichaelHuber,‘§921’,inHans-JoachimMusielak(Ed.),KommentarzurZivilprozessordnung(ZPO):mitGerichtsverfassungsgesetz (VahlenFranzGmbh2009),2297.629 §122(1)CCA.630 ibid§139(1).631 ibid§23.632 ibid§71(1).633 §143(1)ofthePatentsAct1980.634 §39(1)oftheEmployeeInventionsAct2009.635 §27(1)oftheUtilityModelsAct1986.

GER

MAN

Y


MarksAct1994,636VarietyProtectionAct1997,637 theDesignsAct2004,638TopographiesProtectionAct1987639andtheUnfairCompetitionAct2010.640Withrespecttocopyrightandrelatedrights,theregionalcourtswillbecompetenttohearsuchcasesonlywhenthevalueoftheclaimexceedsEUR5,000.

The exclusive jurisdiction of the regional courts is established in accordance with a particular substantive law provisiongivinggroundstoaclaim.Forexample,withrespecttopatents,theregionalcourtsareexclusivelycompetentoverpatentdisputes(‘Patentstreitsachen’).641Theterm‘patentdisputes’isinterpretedbroadly,and is not subject to a strict legal review to avoid additional costs for the parties.642TheBGHexplainedthatpatentdisputesincludealldisputesthathaveastheirobject:aclaimoracounterclaimconcerningtheentitlementtotheinvention,oraclaimresultingfromorcloselyrelatedtosuchentitlement.643 The meaning ofapatentdisputewill thuscoverclaimsrelatedto infringement,ownership, inventorship, transferofapatent,aswellasclaims regarding licencesgrantedasof rightunder§23of thePatentAct1980andcompulsory licensesgrantedunder§24ofthePatentAct1980.644 It is importanttonotethatGermanyhastheso-calledbifurcatedsystem,645 according to which disputes regarding the validity of a patent are notconsideredtobepatentdisputesandthusfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheBPatG,andnottheregionalcourts. Inaddition,disputes, inwhichtherelationtothepatent-relatedsubjectmatter is incidental,arealso not considered to be patent disputes.646Forexample,claimsconcerningthecompensationofcostsfor legal representation against a losing party will only be considered a patent dispute if they involve the assessment of the properties of an invention.647Disputesthatarenotconsidered‘patentdisputes’fallunderthejurisdictionoftheGermanIPOffice,theBPatG,aswellastheadministrative,financialandlabourcourts.Inaddition,claimsrelatedto‘slavishimitations’prohibitedundertheUnfairCompetitionAct,648 complaints againstaninactivityoftheGermanIPOffice,insolvencyproceedings,applicationsforattachmentordersagainstapatentunder§916RCP,enforcementofjudgementsrelatedtopurelymonetaryclaims,arealsonot‘patentdisputes’.649

Similarly,undertheTradeMarksAct1994theregionalcourtsareexclusivelycompetentover‘trademarkdisputes’.650Aswithpatents,theterm‘trademarkdispute’isinterpretedbroadly.651Therefore,inadditiontoallmattersdirectlyderivedfromtheTradeMarksAct1994,theconceptofatrademarkdisputealsocoversall legal transactionswhichareat leastpartiallygovernedby theAct, forexampleclaims related to thetransfer,charge,formationorlicensingofarightprotectedundertrademarklaw.652 The same applies to the disputesinvolvinglegalorbusinessrelationswhicharenotdirectlyregulatedbytheAct,butarelinkedtothecreationorcontentofrightsprotectedunderthisAct,forexample,coexistenceagreementsorsettlementagreements relating to an alleged infringement of a trade mark.653 The same approach to the jurisdiction of theregionalcourtsisappliedtoutilitymodels,plantvarieties,topographiesanddesigndisputes.

TheBPatGhasjurisdictioninrelationtothefollowingmatters:(i)reviewofthedecisionbytheGermanIPOfficeandtheFederalPlantVarietyOfficeconcerningregistrationofpatents,utilitymodels,trademarks,designs, topographies, andplant variety rights;654 (ii) applications for declaration of invalidity of rights with respect to national patents, European patents designated to Germany, supplementary protectioncertificates;655and(iii)issuanceandwithdrawalofcompulsorylicences,aswellastheassessmentoftheremuneration for such licences.656Aswasmentionedabove,thejurisdictionoftheGermancourtsthatdealwithIPmattersisbifurcated.Thismeansthatmattersrelatedtoinfringementsandvalidityfallunderthe

636 §140(1)oftheTradeMarksAct1994.637 §38(1)oftheVarietyProtectionAct1997.638 §52(1)oftheDesignsAct2004.639 §11(2)oftheTopographiesProtectionAct1987inconjunctionwith§27(1)oftheUtilityModelsAct1986.640 §13oftheUnfairCompetitionAct2004.641 §143(1)ofthePatentAct1980.642 BGH,22.02.2011–XZB4/09,[9].643 BGH,22.02.2011–XZB4/09,[9];22.06.1954–IZR225/53.644 Kaess(n542)2370.NotethattheissuanceofcompulsorylicensesfallswithinthejurisdictionoftheBPatG.645 §65(1)ofthePatentAct1980.646 BGH,20.03.2013–XZB15/12,[10],infine.647 BGH,20.03.2013–XZB15/12.648 Atypeofunfaircompetitionpractice,whichamountstointroducinganimitationofnon-protectedinventions.649 ThomasKühnen,‘§143’inRainerSchulte(Ed.),PatentgesetzmitEuropäischemPatentübereinkommen: Kommentar(10thed.,Heymanns,Carl2008),1572.650 §140(1)oftheTradeMarksAct1994.651 BGH,4.03.2004–IZR50/03,[II]652 ibid.653 ibid.654 §65(1)ofthePatentAct1980;§18(1)oftheUtilityModelsAct1986;§66(1)oftheTradeMarksAct1994;§23(2)oftheDesignsAct2004;§4(4)of theTopographiesProtectionAct1987inconjunctionwith§18(1)oftheUtilityModelsAct1986;§34(1)oftheVarietyProtectionAct1997.655 §65(1)ofthePatentAct1980;Article138oftheEuropeanPatentConvention1973;ArticleII§6ofthePatentCooperationTreaty1978.656 §24(1)ofthePatentAct1980.

GER

MAN

Y


jurisdictionofdifferentcourts.TheBPatGhasexclusive jurisdictionover thequestionofvalidityof theproperty rights of the parties and does not have jurisdiction over any disputes related to infringements ofIPrightsin,forexample,patentandtrademarkdisputes.Thelatter,asdiscussedabove,fallunderthejurisdiction of the regional courts.657AppealsagainstBPatGjudgementsarefiledwiththeBGH.658

ThejurisdictionoftheBPatGandthedesignatedregionalcourtsisnotdependentonthelegalstatusoftheclaimants.Aswasalreadyexplained,thecourtsassessthesubstanceoftheclaim, i.e.whetherornotitisbasedonsubstantiveIPlaw.Asaresult,IPownersmayrefertheirIPdisputestothedesignatedregional courts irrespective of their legal status. The law also does not make the jurisdiction of the designated localandregionalcourtdependentonwhethertheclaimant istheauthorof thecopyright,i.e.,thecreatorofawork,orothertypeofcopyrightowner.Forinstance,inthe§97oftheCopyrightAct1965,thedefinitionofthelegalstandingrefersto‘theinjuredparty’,659 rather than to the author. These assertionsareconfirmedbytheprovisionsoftheActthatexplicitlyauthorise,forexample,successorsintitle,tofileclaimsconcerningthecopyrightinquestionwiththecompetentcourt.660

InGermany,thereisnoseparateprocedurefortherecognitionoftrademarksas‘well-known’.Therefore,this is done on a case-by-case basis.661Asaresultoftheconcentratedjurisdiction,therecognitionofwell-known trade marks is carried out by the courts designated by the state government as exclusively competentintrademarkdisputes.Ifthenotorietyofatrademarkisusedasabasistoinstigateoppositionorinvalidityproceedingsunder§42and§51oftheTradeMarksAct1994,thecasewillbeconsideredbytheGermanIPOfficeandtheBPatGinaccordancewiththebifurcationprinciple.

As was mentioned above, certain IP disputes, such as claims regarding inactivity of the German IPOffice,willqualifyasadministrativedisputesandthuswillfallunderthejurisdictionoftheadministrativecourts, which belong to a separate branch within the German judiciary.662 Inmost general terms, anadministrativedisputeisanypubliclawdisputeofanon-constitutionalnature,insofarasadisputeisnotexplicitly allocated to another court by a federal statute.663Thequalificationofadisputeasadministrative,therefore,woulddependonthenatureof the legal relationshipfromwhichtheclaimisderived.664 The central question to be answered is whether the parties to the dispute are in a legal relationship involving superiorityofoneovertheother,wherethesuperiorpartymakesuseoftheauthorityassignedtoitbyvirtue of a special administrative provision.665

Similar considerations apply to tax and customs disputeswith an IP element. Financial disputes are aspecialformofadministrativeproceedings,andarecharacterisedasadministrativedisputesonthebasisoftheabovecriteria.Specifically,a‘financiallawdispute’isanypubliclawdisputeinvolvingadministrationoftaxes or the application of tax law provisions by the tax authorities.666 The decisive factor is also the nature of theprovisiononwhichtheclaimisbased.Therefore,insuchcasesas,forexample,disputesconcerningthereductionofincometaxfromtheexploitationofapatentedinventionandthequalificationofapatentasan‘objectofeconomicvalue’fortaxpurposeswillfallwithinthejurisdictionofthefinancialcourts.667Likewise,customs disputes are considered to be administrative disputes. The activity or inactivity of the customs authoritiesmaybechallengedatthefinancialcourts.668Exceptionally,thecivilcourtsmaybeinvolvedinproceedingsconcerningIP-relatedcustomsdisputes.Forexample,acustomsauthoritymayissueanorderfortheconfiscationofIP-infringinggoods,whichthenmaybechallengedbytheowneroftheconfiscatedgoods.Insuchcase,theIPrightholderhasthedutytoprovideacourtorderprescribingtheimpoundingoftheconfiscatedproductsorimposingarestrictionovertheproducts.669 The rightholder may choose to applyeithertoalocalcourtforacriminalseizureorderortoaregionalcourtforapreliminaryinjunctiverelief order.670 If the IP rightholder fails topresentacourtorder to thecustomsauthority, the latter lifts

657 The party in question could be either an inventor or an applicant for a compulsory license.658 §100(1)ofthePatentAct1980.659 TheGermanterminologyis:‘derVerletzte’.660 §30oftheCopyrightAct1965.661 OLGFrankfurt,12.09.2012–9U36/11,[18];SönkeAhrens,GeistigesEigentumundWettbewerbsrecht(Springer2015)73;FriedrichLEkeyetal., Markenrecht:MarkengesetzundMarkenrechtausgewählterausländischerStaaten(3rded.,CFMüller2014)1338.662 InGermanytheadministrativebranchcomprisesadministrativecourts(‘Verwaltungerichte’),higheradministrativecourts (‘Oberverwaltungsgerichte’)andtheFederalAdministrativeCourt(‘Bundesverwaltungsgericht’);thefinancialbranch:financecourts (‘Finanzgericht’)andFederalFinancialCourt(‘Bundesfinanzhof’).663 Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung,§40oftheRulesofAdministrativeCourts.664 BGH,24.07.2001-VIZB12/01.665 Kaess(n542)2365.666 §33oftheRulesofProcedurebeforeFinancialCourts2001(‘Finanzgerichtsordnung’),28.4.1983–IVR77/82.667 Kaess(n542)2365.668 §33and46oftheRulesofProcedurebeforeFinancialCourts2001.669 §142a(7)ofthePatentAct1980;§148(3)oftheTradeMarksAct1994.670 Kühnen(n649)1555,1556.

GER

MAN

Y


theconfiscation.Suchproceedingsbeforethelocalorregionalcourtsdonotconstituteanadministrativedispute;theyareconductedunderthecriminalorcivilrulesofproceduresrespectivelyandareconcernedwith whether there was an infringement.

Finally,therearenospecialisedcourtsfordisputesrelatingtoinformationsecurityandcybercrime.Theseare dealt with by the general judiciary in the civil or criminal branch depending on the character of the case.

2.3. Evidence in IP casesTherulesonevidenceareestablishedbytheRCP.Thecourtsadmitvarioustypesofevidence,includingprivateandpublicrecords,suchaselectronicdocuments,671evidencetakenbyvisualinspection,672 evidence providedbyexperts,673 witness testimony674 and deposition of a party.675

2.3.1. Evidence in electronic formThere are no specific requirements that electronic evidencemust be submitted in an original form. Inparticular,anypieceofevidenceinanelectronicformisadmissiblewithnospecificlimitationssetinthelaw.Suchevidenceisreferredtoas‘eye-sightevidence’andmustbesubmittedtothecourtbyproducingortransmittingthefilecontainingthepieceofinformationinquestion,forexampleonaharddisc,aCD,orby producing a printed picture on a piece of paper.676 A screenshot of a website is an admissible form of evidenceandmaybeusedtoproveanIPinfringement.Inaddition,therearenospecificrequirementsregardingauthenticationofevidence,whichcanbedonebyanymeansofpresentationofevidenceallowedbythelaw.However,authenticationisrequiredwherethepartiesintendtheelectronicevidencetobequalifiedasaprivatedocument.Suchtypeofevidencepossessesspecialprobativevalue,asitautomaticallyprovesthatthedeclarationsitcontainsweremadeby the party or parties who provided it.677 Evidence in the form of an electronic private document must comply with certain statutory requirements.678Inparticular,thedocumentmustbearaqualifiedelectronicsignature.679 In this respect, the authenticity of a statement in an electronic format after examinationofaqualifiedelectronicsignature680 can only be contested if serious doubts arise as to the statement havingbeenmadebythepersonwhoreliesuponanelectronicidentification.681Alternatively,thepersonwhoissuedthedocumentinquestionmusthaveusedtheirdedicatedpersonalaccountinthe‘De-Mail-Service’,establishedbypublicauthoritiesundertheDe-MailActof28April2011.682 It followsthat, ifadocumentdoesnotcomplywitheitherofthetwoforegoingrequirements,itmayonlybeviewedasregular‘visualevidence’,devoidofaspecialprobativevalue.683

Tosumup,Germanlawdoesnotrequirethepartiestopresent‘originalcopies’ofelectronicevidence.Ifapartywishestorelyon,forexample,ascreenshotofawebsite,itmayfileaCDorapendrivewithacopyofthefilecontainingascreenshot,orsimplysubmitaprintoutofthescreenshot.Thecourtwillthenevaluatethescreenshotinaccordancewiththegeneralrulesofassessmentofevidence.If,however,apartyintendstheelectronicevidencetobequalifiedasa‘privatedocument’,heorsheshouldeitherusethequalifiedelectronicsignatureorthededicated‘De-Mail-Service’.

671 §415ffRCP.672 ibid§371ff.673 ibid§402ff.674 ibid§373ff.675 ibid§445ff.676 MichaelHuber,(n628)1231;seealsoGeorgAlexanderHass,InternetquellenimZivilprozess,Springer2019,50.677 BundestagDrucksache14/498723-25.678 §371aRCP.679 ibid§371a(1).680 Article32oftheRegulation910/2014oftheEuropeanParliamentandtheCouncilof23July2014onelectronicidentificationandtrustservicesfor transactionintheinternalmarket[2014]OJL257.681 §371a(1)RCP;RegulationNo910/2014referstosuchapersonasthe‘relyingparty’,whichmeansanaturalorlegalpersonthatreliesuponan electronicidentificationoratrustserviceasperArticle3.682 TheDe-Mail-Serviceisasystemofservicesonanelectroniccommunicationplatform,thataimsatestablishingsafe,confidentialandtransparent circulationofcommercialinformationintheInternet(De-MailAct2011,§1).683 §416RCP.

GER

MAN

Y


2.3.2. ExpertsThere are two types of experts that can take part in IP proceedings: experts appointed by the court(‘gerichtlich Sachverständige’or‘courtexperts’)andexpertscommissionedbytheparty(‘Privatgutachter’ or ‘partyexperts’).684 The task of the court expert is to provide the judges with knowledge concerning technical matters of the case or relevant norms (such as commercial customs or foreign law). Court expertscanalsoassistthecourtinanyothermatterrelatedtotheirprofessionalexperience,providedthatthe court itself does not possess such knowledge or experience.685 Each party can submit a written expert opinion by their respective party experts. Such opinions are treated as statements of the parties and do not constitute expert evidence. The probative value of such statements depends solely on the discretion of the court.686Therulesgoverningcourtexpertevidencedonotapplytopartyexperts.Moreover, thecourt does not hear party experts or allow for the cross-examination of an expert commissioned by another party.687Inpractice,however,iftheopinionofapartyexpertcontradictstheanalysispreparedbyacourtexpert,thecourtcannotdisregardthepartyexpertopinion.688Inthiscase,thecourtmustrequesta supplementary opinion of the court expert or summon him or her to provide further explanations during the hearing.689 Theassessmentof theexpertopinion, asanyother typeof evidence, is subject to thediscretion of the court.690Ifthecourtdecidestodepartfromanexpertassessmentitmustsubstantiateitsdecision,makingitclearthatthedivergingassessmentwasnotduetothelackofknowledgeoftheexpert.691Inverycomplexcases,ifnotconvincedbytheexpert’sfindings,thecourtmayappointanotherexpertinaccordancewith§412RCP.692

Ingeneral,expertsmaynotprovidetheiropinionontheissuesoflaw693 and may not substitute the court in its assessment of legalmatters such as interpretation of a contract, patent claimconstruction,694 or thedecisionwhethertheinventionispatentableorsufficientlydisclosed.695Forexample,theexpertmayexplainobjectivetechnicalconceptssuchaspriorknowledgeoftheexpertsinthefield,knowledge,skills,andmethodologicalapproaches,whichmaydetermineoraffecttheunderstandingofthepatentclaimandthe terms used therein.696 The expert, however,maynot advise the court onhow to resolve thematter,includingstatingorimplyingthatapartyis‘entitledto’something,thataclaimis‘justified’orthatarightis‘conditional’uponsomething.697 The court must be very cautious when delineating the scope of the expert opinion,sincethefailuretoexcludeanyquestionsoflawisconsideredagravejudicialerror.698

2.3.3. Power of the court to appoint an expert unilaterallyItisatthecourt’sdiscretiontoappointanexpert.699Thecourtmayappointanexpertif,afterconsultationswiththeparties,itconsidersthatanexpert’sassistanceisrequiredwithrespecttocertainaspectsofthedispute.Under§404(3)RCP,ifexpertshavebeenaccreditedforcertaintypesofmatters,anon-accreditedexpert shall be selected only if particular circumstances so require.700 The court may also decide to replace an already appointed expert with another one.701Inthiscase,whilethecourtisencouragedtoconsulttheparties,suchaconsultationisnotformallyrequired.702Eveniftheconsultationswiththepartiestakeplace,thecourtisnotboundbytheiropinionunlessbothpartiesagreeonaspecificexperttobeappointed.Insuchacase,thecourtmustappointtheexpertagreeduponbytheparties.703

684 Huber(n628)1271-1272.685 ibid 1272.686 ibid 1272.687 ‘PatentlitigationinGermany:overview’(n587).688 BGH,10.10.2000–VIZR10/00,II.689 Huber(n628)1273.690 §286(1)RCP.691 Huber(n628)1274.692 ibid.693 TheGermanterminologyis‘Rechtsfrage’.694 BGH,22.12.2009–XZR56/08.695 BGH,3.2.2015–X76/13.696 BGH,11.10.2005–XZR76/04,[16].697 UweLuz,‘DerSachverständigenbeweis:dieGrößteProblembaustelledesBaurechts–einWeckruf’(2017)1BauR14.698 ibid.699 §404(1)RCP.700 Inthiscontextaccreditationmeansbeingofficiallyincludedinthelistofcertifiedexperts.Theaccreditationofexperts,includingthequalification requirements,isregulatedinthefederalandstatelegislation(Huber(n628)1277,footnote11),andisusuallysupervisedbytherelevantchambers ofindustryandcommerce.SeefurtherinformationonthewebsiteoftheChamberofIndustryandCommerce(Industrie-undHandelskammer),‘Fragen zumSachverständigenwesen’<https://svvihk.de/svv/content/home/faq.ihk?actionMethod=content%2Fhome%2Ffaq.xhtml%3AlocaleSelector. selectLanguage%28%27de%27%29&cid=171820>,accessed23September2020.701 §404(1)RCP.702 ibid§404(3).703 ibid§404(5).

GER

MAN

Y


2.4. Preliminary injunctive relief in IP casesIn general, there are two typesof preliminary injunctive reliefs inGermany, injunctionsandattachmentorders. The court can grant a preliminary injunctive relief either in an ex parte or inter partesproceeding,with certain limitations applicable to the ex parte proceedings explained below.

Injunctions(‘einstweiligen Verfügungen’) can be further divided into (i) interim injunctions that secure the futureenforcementofnon-monetaryclaims,704 and (ii) regulatory injunctions that secure the temporary statusofalegalrelationshipindispute,providedthatthisisnecessarytoavertsignificantdisadvantages,preventimpendingforce,orforotherreasons.705Themaindistinctionbetweenthetwotypesofinjunctions,therefore, consists in the fact that while regulatory injunctions aim at provisory regulation of a legalrelationshiptoavoiddamages,interiminjunctionsmayonlysecureenforcementofnon-monetaryclaims.706 Inparticular,thepartyapplyingforaninteriminjunctionseeksawarrantythattheclaimagainstitsopponentwillnotresultinbeingunenforceableordifficulttoenforce.Anon-monetaryclaimencompassesanyclaimtoperform,toabstainfromperformingornottointerferewiththeperformanceofagivenactivity.707 The purpose of interim injunctions is thus to secure enforcement of such a claim. For example, an interiminjunction securing a claim in a particular item may create a lien on that item or order a transfer of property rightsovertheitemtotheapplicant.Ontheotherhand,thepartyseekingaregulatoryinjunctionisseekingtoreceiveatemporaryjudicialregulationofadispute,whichmayinvolveatemporarysatisfactionoftheapplicantinordertoavoidimminentdamages.Thiswillbethecase,forexample,wherethecourttemporarilyrestrainsmanagingpowersofacompany’sboardofdirectors,orordersapartytotemporarilyabstainfrominhibitingitscompetitors’accesstomarket,708orprohibitscertainactsallegedlyinfringinganIPright.709

Attachment orders allow the creditor of a monetary claim to preliminarily secure a future enforcement of the judgement to be obtained in the main proceedings.710 An attachment order differs from injunctions in that it may only secure monetary claims.711

Apeculiarityof theGermancivil procedure in theareaof IP712 and competition law713 is the ‘warning’714

requirement.Itmeansthatbeforeapplyingforapreliminaryrelief,theapplicantmustservetheallegedlyinfringingpartywithaceaseanddesistletter.Thesignificanceofthewarningrequirementpertainstotheattribution of liability for costs.715 IfanIPrightholdersueswithouthavingproducedthewarningandthedefendantimmediatelyacknowledgeshisorherdemands,theIPrightholderwillbeliableforcostsunder§93RCP.716WhileforthemajorityofIPrightsthewarningrequirementisdeducedfrom§93RCP,somestatutesspecificallyregulatethismatter.717Moreover,arecentjudgementoftheGermanFederalConstitutionalCourtestablished that the warning obligation could be inferred from the constitutional principle of equality of arms in the civil procedure.718 The practical application of the judgement is of particular importance to the applications for a preliminary injunctive relief granted ex parte,astheCourtmadeitclearthatadefendantmust either be warned or heard before being ruled against.

Finally,theIPrightholdercanrequestthecourttoordercertainspecificmeasuressuchasdestructionofinfringingproducts,provisionof informationordocumentsconcerning the infringement,orcarryingoutan inspection related thereto.719Mostofthesemeasuresmaybeimposedbymeansofinjunctions.Insuchcases, theapplicantmustsatisfy thegrounds forgrantingpreliminary injunctive relief,which incertaininstancesaremodifiedaccordingly.720

704 TheGermanterminologyis‘Sicherungsverfügung’asper§935RCP.705 TheGermanterminologyis‘Regelungsverfügung;asper§940RCP.706 RoderichCThümmel,‘ZivilprozessordnungundNebengesetze’inRolfASchützeandBernhardWieczorek(Eds.),Großkommentar(4thed.,2014)164.707 Huber(n628)2276.708 ibid 2286.709 ibid 2291. 710 TheGermanterminologyis‘Arrest’asper§916RCP.711 Huber(n628)2241.712 AndreaSchmelz-Buchhold,MediationbeiWettbewerbsstreitigkeiten(HerbertUtzVerlag2010)178.713 DieterWolst,‘§93’inHans-JoachimMusielak(Ed.)KommentarzurZivilprozessordnung,(7thed.,VahlenFranzGmbh2009)434.714 Schmelz-Buchhold(n712)178.715 Kühnen(n649)1453.716 §93RCP,accordingtowhichwherethedefendanthasnotgivencauseforanactiontobebrought,theplaintiffshallbearthecostsofthe proceedings should the defendant immediately acknowledge the claim.717 §97aoftheCopyrightAct1965;§12(2)oftheUnfairCompetitionAct2004.718 BVerfG,30.09.2018–1BvR1783/17.719 Inrelationtopatentssee§140a-140cofthePatentAct1980;inrelationtotrademarkssee§19a-19coftheTradeMarksAct1994;inrelationto designssee§43,§§46a-46boftheDesignsAct2004;inrelationtoutilitymodelssee§§24a-24cUtilityModelsAct1989;inrelationtoplant varietiessee§§37a-37coftheVarietyProtectionAct1997;inrelationtocopyrightsee§98,§101and§101aoftheCopyrightAct1965.720 Certainadditional requirementsmaybe imposed.Forexample, inpatentcases,an injunctionobliging the respondent toprovide information regardingtheoriginandthechannelofcommerceoftheproductsused,mayonlybeissuediftheinfringementisobvious(§140bofthePatentAct1980). Theobviousnessrequirementreplaces,inthisinstance,theurgencyrequirementfurtherexplainedbelow(Kühnen(n649)1513).

GER

MAN

Y


2.4.1. Grounds for granting preliminary injunctive reliefInessence,asuccessfulapplicationforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefmustdemonstrateandsubstantiatetwo general requirements. First, a partymust demonstrate and substantiate an entitlement to a relief,namelythattheclaimantistheproprietorofanIPrightandthatthedefendantiscurrentlyusingorisgoingtousetheIPrightinquestionwithouttheclaimant’sconsent.Thisrelatestothesubstantiveassessmentof the legal basis underlying the application.721Second,thethreattotheapplicant’srightsmustbeurgent,i.e.theenforcementoftheIPrightinpreliminaryproceedings,asopposedtothemainproceedings,mustbenecessaryandjustified.Thesegeneralprerequisitesapplytoalltypesofpreliminaryinjunctivereliefsmentionedabove.Moreover,bothattachmentsandinjunctionsarenotdiscretionaryremedies,i.e.ifthetworequirements (entitlement and urgency) are properly demonstrated and substantiated the court must grant therelief.Inordertodemonstratetheserequirementsapartymustindicatetheentitlement,groundsandfactsrelevanttothematter,whilethesubstantiation,ontheotherhand,requirespresentationofevidence.However, the threshold forsubstantiation isset lower than for themainproceedings. In this regard, thejudgeexercisesdiscretionas to thedegreeofcredibility,especiallyas faras thequestionofurgencyofthreat is concerned.727Moreover,aswillbeexplainedindetailbelow,apreliminaryinjunctivereliefmaybegrantedeveniftheapplicantdidnotsubstantiatetheapplication,butonlyprovidedsecurity.The first condition, entitlement, applies to injunctions as follows. For interim injunctions it is requiredthattheapplicantmustsatisfythecourtthatheorshehasanon-monetaryclaim,i.e.,aclaimtospecificperformanceofcivillawnature,728suchasaclaimtoperform,abstainfromperforming,ornottointerferewith the performance of certain activities.729Theclaimmustrefertoaspecificfactualbackground,andbecapable of being enforced.730Anon-monetaryclaimis,forexample,aclaimtoceaseanddesistinpatentand trade mark disputes.731Withrespecttotheentitlementelementinthecontextofregulatoryinjunctions,thecourtmustbesatisfiedthatthereisalegalrelationshipbetweentheparties,andthattherelationshipis in dispute.732A legalrelationshipmaybeestablishedonthebasisofasubstantive IPright,suchas§139(1)ofthePatentAct1980or§14(7)oftheTradeMarksAct994,wherethelegalrelationshipoccursifa thirdparty infringes the IP right.733As to the ‘dispute’element, itcoversnotonly thecircumstanceswheretherespondentdeniesrightsorclaimsoftheapplicant,butalsosituationsofevenanindirect,butconcrete,threatofinfringement.734 The entitlement condition as applied to the attachment order requires the applicant to satisfy the court that he or she has a monetary claim against the defendant.735

The second condition is urgency. Several types of urgency are set out in the provisions concerning different typesofpreliminaryinjunctivereliefs:

a) urgency of threat in interim injunctions – the applicant must demonstrate that a change of circumstancesmightfrustratetherealisationoftherightenjoyedbyanapplicant,ormightrenderits realisationsignificantlymoredifficult.736Inotherwords,thethreattotheenforcementoftheclaim mustbesourgent,thattheapplicantcannotbeexpectedtowaituntiltheconclusionofthemain proceedings.737Thatwillbethecase,forexample,wherethereisariskofdeterioration,destruction,or other misappropriation of the object in dispute.738Urgencywillnotbeestablishedwheretheconduct oftheapplicantindicatestothecontrary.Thatmaybethecasewheretheapplicant,whilepossessing knowledgeastotheidentityoftheinfringerandthecircumstancesoftheinfringement,delaysthe application. The threat is assessed objectively.739

721 TheterminologyinGermanis‘Verfügungsanspruch’.722 TheterminologyinGermanis‘Verfügungsgrund’;Huber(n628),2275.723 Thümmel(n706)165.724 BGH,17.07.2001–X65/99.725 Thümmel(n706)60ff.726 BGH,25.06.2008–IIZR133;4.07.2000–IVZR236/99.727 Thümmel(n706)168.728 Thümmel(n706),164.729 Huber(n628),2276.730 Thümmel(n706)164.731 Kühnen(n649),1492.732 §940RCP.733 Kühnen(n649),1492.734 Huber(n628),2285.735 §916RCP.736 ibid§935.737 Thümmel(n706),166.738 Huber(n628),2275.739 Thümmel(n706),166.

GER

MAN

Y


b) urgencyofthreatinregulatoryinjunctions–theapplicantmustdemonstratethataninjunction willbenecessaryinordertoavertsignificantdisadvantages,topreventimminentforce,orforother reasons;inparticular,inthecaseofexistinglegalrelationshipsofalong-termnature.740 The analysis involves balancing the legally protected interests of the parties.741Forexample,inpatentdisputesthe court weighs the interest of the patent owner in receiving provisory protection against the disadvantagesthattheallegedinfringermaysuffer,suchasathreatofliquidation,interruptionof production,orariskofemployeeslosingjobs.However,thesecircumstancescannotprevailincases of obvious infringement.742Anotherimportantfactoristhestrengthofthepatent,i.e.whetheritis likely to be invalidated.743 In addition, similar to interim injunctions, urgencymaybe excluded asaresultoftheapplicant’sconduct,forexample,iftheapplicantwaitedfortoolongtoapply for an injunction.744Thehigherregionalcourtshavefoundthefollowingsituationstobeurgent: where the claim for patent invalidity has already been rejected in a separate first instance proceedings,orwherethetermofpatentprotectionisexpiring.745Ontheotherhand,thefollowing willnotbeconsideredurgent:wheretheinfringersubstantiatesthatthepatentwillbeinvalidated inseparateinvalidityproceedings,wherethescopeofthepatenthadbeenlimitedinthecourse oftheproceedingsbeforetheIPOffice,andwheretheapplicantappliedforthesameinjunction inanothercourt,whichhadrefusedit,andthecircumstanceshavenotchanged.746

c) urgencyof threat inattachmentorders–anattachmentorderwillbegranted if failure todo so would frustrate the enforcement of the claim or make it significantly more difficult.747 Essentially,asufficientthreattotheexecutionofamonetaryclaimmustbeestablished.Sucha threat might be caused by the behaviour of the respondent, regardless of its culpability or unlawfulness.748 Examples include devaluation or alienation of the respondent’s assets, concealmentofhisorhermaterialsituation,orevenfrequentchangesofdomicile.749Inaddition, sufficientthreatalsocoversnaturallyoccurringeventsoractsofthirdpartiessuchasfire,storms, boycotts, strikes.750 In practice, however, the threatwill usually result from the respondent’s behaviour or position.751Moreover,thethreatmustbeimminent,i.e.thisrequirementwillnotbe fulfilled,forinstance,wheretheapplicant,uponreceivingtheinformationastothedeterioration oftherespondent’sfinancialsituation,hasdelayedhisorherapplicationforalongerperiodof time.752Finally,thethreatmustbeassessedobjectively.753

d) qualifiedurgency forex parte injunction applications754–acasewillbeconsideredurgent in these circumstances if a potential delay as a result of the procedural aspects related to hearings would undermine the purpose of preliminary proceedings.755

e) qualifiedurgencyincaseofapplicationforinjunctiontolocalcourts(seePartII.4.2.concerning application for injunctive relief).

TheurgencyrequirementisgenerallynotapplicablewithrespecttoapplicationsmadeundertheUnfairCompetition Act 2004.756 Thestatute introduces thepresumptionofurgency,whichmaybe rebutted ifit isproven that thecase isnoturgent, for examplebecause theapplicantwaited toobeforefiling theapplication.757 Where the presumption of urgency applies, applicants need only to substantiate the‘entitlement’element,i.e.satisfythecourtthattheyhavetheclaim.

740 §940RCP.741 Kühnen(n649)1492.742 ibid 1493. 743 ibid.744 ibid 1492.745 ibid 1493.746 ibid.747 §917RCP.748 Huber(n628),2243.749 ibid.750 ibid.751 Thümmel(n706)29.752 ibid.753 ibid 30.754 §937RCP.755 Huber(n628)2281.756 §12(2)oftheUnfairCompetitionAct2004.Ithasbeensuggestedthattheprovisionmaybeappliedperanalogiamtotrademarks,utilitymodels andcopyright.Theopinionsofthejudiciaryandtheliteratureremaindivided,leaning,however,towardstheexclusionoftheanalogicalapplication of§12(2)oftheUnfairCompetitionAct2004(seeHelmutLieber,AxelZimmermann,DieeinstweiligeVerfügungimGewerblichenRechtschutz, VerlagC.H.Beck2009,35; FriedrichL. Ekey, ‘§14’ in (Ed.) FriedrichL. Ekey,AchimBender,DiethelmKlippeMarkenrecht:Markengesetzund MarkenrechtausgewählterausländischerStaaten,CFMüllerVerlag,2nded.,2009,310-311).757 HelmutLieber,AxelZimmermann(n759)33.

GER

MAN

Y


Asmentioned,providedthataqualifiedformofurgencyasexplainedabovecanbeestablished,anyformofapreliminaryinjunctionreliefmaybeissuedwithoutholdingahearing,namelyitcanbeissuedex parte758. Similar isthesituationforattachments,whichmaybegrantedex parte,whereanelementofsurpriseisrequired in order to secure the enforcement of a monetary claim.759Ineithercase,itisimportanttobearinmind the ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court and the warning requirement established therein.

2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuitAnapplicationforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefcanbemadebeforesubmittingthemainlawsuit.Ingeneral,such applications should be submitted to the court in which the main proceedings will take place in accordance with the rules of procedure.760Iftheapplicationisnotfollowedbythefilingofthemainlawsuitwithintheperioddeterminedbythecourt,thereliefisrevoked.761

However, inattachmentproceedings, inaddition to thecourt competent in themainproceedings, theapplicant isalsoentitled tofileanapplication to the local court in thedistrictwhere theobject tobeseizedislocated.762Inthiscase,themainclaimandanyrelatedapplicationmustbefiledwiththecourtcompetent to hear the main claim.763 An injunction may also be issued by the local court in the district wheretheobjectofthelitigationislocated,butsolelyinurgentcases.764

Theurgencyrequirementinsuchcases,alsoreferredtoasqualifiedurgency,isdifferentfromtheurgencyexplainedabove:inthesecircumstances,acasewillbeconsideredurgentiftheapplicationtothecompetentregionalcourtwouldcauseasignificantdelayandthusseriouslyendangerthepurposeofthepreliminaryproceedings.765Inpractice,suchurgencywillonlyrarelyoccur.766Iftherequestforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefissubmittedbeforethefilingofthemainlawsuit,thelocalcourt,alongwiththegrantingofaninjunction,mustorderthepartytocommencethemainproceedingswithinaspecifiedtimeperiodinthecourtthathas jurisdiction to consider such a dispute.767Iftheapplicantfailstodoso,thelocalcourtthatgrantedtheinjunction must revoke its order upon the respondent’s application.768

2.4.3. Cross-undertakingInaccordancewiththegeneralprincipleofthecivilprocedure,thedefendantisentitledtoacompensationfor the losses he or she suffered as a result of a preliminary injunctive relief that was granted without sufficientgrounds.Inaddition,incertainsituationsthecourtmayor,dependingonthecircumstances,mustorder the claimant to provide a cross-undertaking in the form of security.

Ifapreliminary injunctive reliefproves tohavebeenunfounded,or ifsucha relief is revokeddue to theapplicant’sfailuretofilethemainlawsuit,theapplicantisobligedtocompensatetherespondentforthedamagestheysuffered.Suchdamagescouldbetheresultoftheenforcementoftherelief,theprovisionofsecuritybythedefendantinordertoaverttheenforcementofapreliminaryinjunctiverelief,ortoobtainthe revocation of the relief.769Thesameapplieswhereapreliminaryreliefhasbeenrevokedormodifiedbythe court of appeal or cassation.770 If,however,theordergrantingthereliefhasbeenaffirmedonappealandreversedormodifiedthereafteruponfurtherappeals,theinjuredpartywillonlybeabletogetredressfor unjust enrichment.771Theliabilityoftheapplicantinthisrespectisstrict,i.e.intentionornegligenceisirrelevant.772Apreliminary injunctivereliefmustbeunfoundedfromthebeginning, i.e. fromthemomentwhen the order was issued and not when the relief was executed or the decision on compensation was issued.773 Therefore, the duty to compensate cannot be established if a preliminary injunctive relief isrevokedduetoachangeinthecircumstancesonwhichtheorderwasbased,forexamplebecausethecasewas no longer urgent.774

758 §937(2)RCP.759 Huber(n628)2248.760 §919,§937(1),§943and§802RCP.761 ibid§926inconjunctionwith§936.762 ibid§919.763 ibid§919,§937(1),§943and§802.764 ibid§942(1).765 Huber(n628)2293.766 ibid.767 §919,§937(1),§943and§802RCP.768 ibid§942(3).769 ibid§945(1)inconjunctionwith§926(2)and§942(3).770 ibid§717(2).771 ibid§717(3).772 Huber(n628)2297.773 ibid 2298.774 §936inconjunctionwith§927RCP.

GER

MAN

Y


Prior tograntingapreliminary injunctive relief thecourtmayrequest theclaimant toprovideacross-undertaking in the formofsecurity,which is lodgedwith thecourt inorder tosecure thedefendant’spotential claims for damages.775Thismayoccurinthefollowingcircumstances.First,andonlyinrelationtoattachments,wheretheentitlementandthegroundsforareliefhavenotbeensubstantiatedtothecourt’ssatisfaction,thecourtmaystillgrantthereliefagainsttheprovisionofsecurityforthedisadvantagesthattheopponent riskssuffering. Insuchcircumstances theprovisionofcross-undertaking ismandatory,i.e. if the judgedecides togranta reliefdespite theapplicant’s failure tosubstantiate theapplication,security must be granted.776Whilethisconditionreferstothedegreeofsubstantiation,itdoesnot,inanycase, relieve theapplicant from the responsibilityofdemonstratingentitlement, groundsand relevantfacts.777Secondly,inthecaseofbothattachmentsandinjunctions,778 the court may make the issuance of a preliminary injunctive relief dependent on security being provided even if the claim and the reasons for arelieftobeissuedhavebeensufficientlysubstantiated.779 An order for security in the latter case may be basedonadeteriorationoffinancialcircumstancesoftheapplicant,whichwouldputanyeventualclaimfor compensation at risk.780

Therearedifferentformsofsecuritythatmaybegranted,includingabankguarantee,apaymentofasumofmoney,emissionofsecurities,orprovisionofvaluableobjectssuchasjewelleryandantiques.781Inaddition,thepartiesmayagreeonaspecificformofsecurity,whichthecourtmustthengrant.782Thismayinclude,forinstance,alienonacar.Astotheamountofsecurity,theassessmentisatthesolediscretionofthecourt.Inthisrespect,thecourtmusttakeintoaccount,aboveall,thepurposeofthecross-undertaking,whichinthecaseof§921RCPistosecure‘disadvantagesthattheopponentriskssuffering’.783Nonetheless,thepostingof the security does not affect the respondent’s right to claim damages

2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiativeThe court cannot revoke or suspend its preliminary injunctive relief of its own volition. A relief can only berevokedupontherequestoftheparty.Thismaybepossibleifthereisachangeofcircumstances, inparticular,wherethegroundsonwhichtheorderwas issuedhavebeenconclusivelydealtwith784 or the applicanthasfailedtofilethemainlawsuitwithintheperiodprescribedbythecourt.785

2.5 Security for costsIngeneral,thereisnoclaimforsecurityforcosts,withoneexception.Securityforcostsmustbeprovidedupon the requestby thedefendant if theclaimant residesoutside the territoryof theEUor theEEA.786 Thecourtenjoysnodiscretion in thesecircumstances, i.e.should theprerequisitesbe fulfilledandthedefendantsorequests,thecourtmustordersecurityforcosts.Theamountofthesecuritytobeprovided,ontheotherhand, isatthecourt’ssolediscretioninaccordancewiththestatutoryprovisions787 and is based on the estimations as to the amount that the defendant will likely have to pay.788

775 ibid§921inconjunctionwith§936.776 ibid§921,firstsentence.777 Thümmel(n706)193.778 ibid 289.779 §921RCP.780 Huber(n628)2249;LGBerlin,08.5.2014–63T49/14.781 UlrichFoerste‘Kommentar’inHans-JoachimMusielak(Ed.)KommentarzurZivilprozessordnungZPOGerichtsverfassungsgesetz, (7thed.,VahlenFranzGmbh2009),488.782 ibid 488.783 Foerste (n 781) 486. 784 §927inconjunctionwith§936RCP.785 ibid§926inconjunctionwith§936.786 ibid§110,accordingtowhichtheobligationtoprovidesecuritywillnotapplywhere,duetointernationaltreaties,nosuchsecuritydepositmay bedemanded,wherethedecisionofreimbursingthedefendant’scostsincurredintheproceedingswouldbeenforcedbasedoninternational treaties,wheretheplaintiffpossessesrealestateassetsorclaimssecuredinreminGermanythatsufficetocoverthecostsoftheproceedings, where counter charges are brought or proceedings have been brought in the courts based on public notice given by a court.787 ibid§112(1).788 ibid§112(2);Foerste(n781)496.

GER

MAN

Y


2.6. Cassation in small value claimsAsnotedabove,thelocalcivilcourtsexercisejurisdictionoverdisputesinwhichthevalueofaclaimdoesnotexceedEUR5,000,andwhicharenotcoveredbytheexclusivejurisdictionoftheregionalcourts.789Insuchcases,theregionalcourtsactasthecourtsofappealreviewingthedecisionsofthelocalcourt.790 Furtherappealsarepossibletothehigherregionalcourts,791andtheBGHactsasafinalinstancecourt.792 AnappealonpointsoflawtotheBGHisadmissibleifthelegalmatterisofafundamentalsignificance,orthe further development of the law or the interests in ensuring a uniform adjudication require a decision to be held by the court of third instance.793Ingeneral,thelawdoesnotimposeanyrequirementsconcerningthevalueoftheclaiminrelationtotheappealsonpointsoflaw.Therefore,anyappealsincludinginthesmallvalueclaimscanbefiledwiththeBGHiftheymeetthegeneralrequirementsforsuchanappeal.However,astandardappealwillgenerallybepermittedonly if thevalueof theclaimexceedsEUR600,unlessthefirstinstancecourtdecidesotherwise.794 This in practice affects the value of claims in cassation proceedings.ThethresholdofEUR600appliesalsototheleapfrogappeal,i.e.appealsagainstthedecisionofthefirstinstancecourtdirectlytotheBGH.795

789 ForadetaileddescriptiononthestructureofthecourtsrefertoSection1.1.StructureofthejudicialsystemandtheIPcourt790 §72(1)CCA.791 ibid§119.792 ibid§133.793 §543RCP.794 ibid§511(2)RCP.795 ibid§566inconjunctionwith§511(2).

GER

MAN

Y


PART IV – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – FRANCE


1.1. Structure of the judicial system and the IP courtInFrance, themajorityof IP-relateddisputes796 are handled by several designated courts within the civil branch of the judicial system.797Thecivilbranchcomprisesthetribunals,798actingasfirstinstancecourts,the courts of appeal799 and the Court of Cassation.800PursuanttotheCodeofJudicialOrganisation1978(CJO) ten tribunals were designated in accordance with the rules of concentration explained below to deal exclusivelywithIPdisputesatfirstinstance.801 Appeals against the decisions of the tribunals are heard by the courts of appeal.802Finally,theCourtofCassationactsasthefinalinstancecourt.803Inthecommercialbranch,commercialcourtsactasfirstinstancecourts;804 in several districts they are supported by special commercial divisions of the tribunals.805 Appeals against decisions of the commercial courts are handled by thecourtsofappeal,andtheCourtofCassationisthefinalinstancecourt.806

Inadditiontothecivilbranchofthejudicialsystem,thecommercialbranchalsohasjurisdictiontoconsidersometypesofIP-relatedcases,namelydisputesconcerningunfaircompetitionandtradesecrets,providedthatcertainconditionsarefulfilled,mostnotably,thatthepartiesare‘merchants’.807

However, if thecasesimultaneously involvesaquestionrelatedtoan IPrightsensu stricto,suchas, forexample,apatent, itwillbeconsideredbyoneofthedesignatedtribunals.808 Ifneitheroftheconditionsmentionedinthisparagraphisfulfilled,i.e.thedisputeisnotbetweenmerchantsanddoesnotconsiderIPrights sensu stricto these types of cases will generally be considered by the civil courts competent under the general rules of material and territorial jurisdiction.

796 Thisexcludesunfaircompetitionandtradesecretsdisputes,whichareconsideredtobepartofthecommerciallawregimeandaregenerallydealt with either by the commercial or the civil branch of the judicial system. See Article L721-1 in conjunction with Articles L420-1ff and L151-1ff of theCodeofCommerce2000 (adoptedbyOrdonnancen°2000-912of18.09.2000); specific rulesofallocationof these typesofdisputesare further explained below in this part and in Section 2.2.797 Inadditiontothecivilbranch,theFrenchjudicialsystemcomprisesalsothecommercial,socialandcriminalbranches.Formoreinformationon theFrenchjudicialsystem,includingtheorganisationaldiagram,seeMinistèredelaJustice,‘Présentationdel’ordrejudiciaire’(Justicegouvfr) http://www.justice.gouv.fr/organisation-de-la-justice-10031/lordre-judiciaire-10033/>accessed23September2020.798 The French terminology is ‘tribunaux judiciares’. Presently, there are 164 tribunals according to the statistical information on the French government’swebsite(seeGouvernement‘Conseildeministresdu6janvier2020:Créationdestribunauxjudiciares’(gouvernement.fr)<https:// www.gouvernement.fr/conseil-des-ministres/2020-01-06/creation-des-tribunaux-judiciaires?utm_source=emailing&utm_medium= email&utm_campaign=conseil_ministre_20200106>, accessed September 2020). They were introduced as a result of the merger of the twoprevious formsof judicialorganisation:magistratecourts ‘tribunauxd’instance’andhighcourts ‘tribunauxdegrande instance’.The mergerconstitutedanelementof thereformof the justicesystemintroducedbyLawn°2019-222of23March2019concerningtheplanning foryears2018-2022andthereformofthejusticesystems(LOIn°2019-222du23mars2019deprogrammation2018-2022etderéformepourla justice).FormoreinformationonthereformseeMinistèredelaJustice,‘Laloideprogrammationetderéformepourlajustice’(Justicegouvfr, 6 July 2020) http://www.justice.gouv.fr/le-garde-des-sceaux-10016/la-loi-de-programmation-et-de-reforme-pour-la-justice-lpj-33022.html> accessed 23 September 2020.799 TheFrenchterminologyis‘courd’appel’.800 TheFrenchterminologyis‘CourdeCassation’.801 TheFrenchnameoftheActis‘Codedel’organisationjudiciaire’;articleL211-10CJO.802 ibid Article L311-1.803 ibid Article L411-2.804 ArticleL721-1oftheCodeofCommerce2000;theFrenchterminologyis‘tribunauxdecommerce’.Presently,thereare136commercialcourts (MinistèredelaJustice,‘LeschiffresclésdelaJustice’(Justicegouvfr,2019)<http://www.justice.gouv.fr/art_pix/CC%202019_V8.pdf>accessed 23 September 2020).805 Incertaintribunalsadditional‘commercialdivisions’(‘chambrescommerciales’)wereestablishedtodealwithcommercialdisputeswhereno,or toofew,commercialcourtsarepresent(ArtL731-1oftheCodeofCommerce2000);incontrasttootherorganisationalentitiesofthetribunals, whicharereferredtosimplyas‘achamberofthetribunal’,thecommercialdivisionshaveaformallydefinedspecialisedcharacter(ArtL731-1ff CommercialCode2000).ThiswillbefurtherelaborateduponinSection2.2.(seefurtherinformationatMinistèredelaJustice(n797).806 MinistèredelaJustice(n799).807 ArticleL721-1theCodeofCommerce2000;thejurisdictionofthecommercialcourts(orcommercialdivisionsoftribunals)coversdisputes relatingtodealingsbetween‘merchants’(‘commerçants’;accordingtoArticleL121-1oftheCodeofCommerce2000,a‘merchant’isapersonor entitywhocarriesoutactsofcommerceandwhomakethisherorhisusualprofession),disputesrelatingtocompaniesanddisputesrelating toactsofcommerce(‘actesdecommerce’;artL721-3oftheCodeofCommerce2000).Incaseswhereneitheroftheforegoingconditionsis fulfilled,thecasewillbeconsideredbythecivilcourts,eitherunderthegeneralrulesofjurisdictionorthespecialrulesforIPdisputes.Inrelation todisputesbetweenanemployerandanemployee,theemploymenttribunals(‘conseilsdeprud’hommes’)arecompetentiftheobligations relatingtounfaircompetitionortradesecretsariseunderanemploymentcontract(ArticleL1411-1oftheLabourCode1973(‘Codedutravail’)).808 Cass com 16 February 2016, no 14-24.295; Article L716-3 (trademark); L615-17 (patents); L622-7 (semi-conductor topographies); L521-3-1 (designs); L623-31 (plant varieties); L331-1 (copyright); L622-7 (protection of topographies of semi-conductors) of the Code of Intellectual Property1992(‘Codedelapropriétéintellectuelle’)(IPC).

FRAN

CE


Aswasalreadymentioned,acertaindegreeofIPspecialisationoftheFrenchjudiciaryisensuredbytheconcentration of jurisdiction.809Specifically,allIPcasesareallocatedtoonetypeofcourtwithinthecivilbranch, the tribunals, andwithin these tribunals,onlya limitednumberof courtsaredesignatedby theCouncil of State810andtheprimeministertohearIP-relateddisputesatfirstinstance.811 Every tribunal is divided into chambers.812Thechambersarereferredtomerelyasthe‘chambersofthetribunal’.813However,althoughthisisnotrequiredbystatute,inpracticeeachchamberisdesignatedtodealwithparticulartypesofdisputes.Asaresult,thetribunalsdesignatedtoconsiderIPdisputesallocatethejudgespossessingIPknowledgeandexperienceintooneormorechambers.Forinstance,intheParistribunalthethirdchamberhearsIPcases.814

Animportantorganisationalrolewithinthestructureofatribunalisfulfilledbythepresidents.Therearetwomaintypesofpresidentsatatribunal:a‘presidentofatribunal’anda‘presidentofachamber’815. The former ensurestheeffectiveoperationofthetribunalandexercisesavarietyofadministrativefunctions,suchasallocationofdisputesbetweenthechambers,aswellastheallocationofcasestoasinglejudge.816Pursuantto theCodeofCivil Procedure (CCP), a president of a tribunal is also competent to grant a preliminaryinjunctive relief.817Ontheotherhand,apresidentofachamberexercisesadministrativefunctionswithinthechamber,andalsohasthepowertoallocatedisputeswithinthechambertoasinglejudge.818Inadditiontotheabove,thepresidentsplayanimportantroleduringhearings,sinceapanelthatconsidersthecaseis,asamatterofprinciple,presidedbyeitherapresidentofatribunalorapresidentofachamber.819

Appeals against the judgements of the tribunals are heard by the relevant courts of appeal, which areorganised geographically, i.e. each Court of Appeal hears all cases within its territorial jurisdiction.820 Accordingly,thecourtsofappealwithjurisdictionovertheregionswherethetendesignatedtribunalsarelocatedhaveexclusivejurisdictionoverappealsagainstthedecisionofthesetribunals.Forexample,theParisCourtofAppealhearsappealsagainstdecisionsoftheParistribunal.Thecourtsofappealaredividedinto chambers.821Thosecourtsofappeal thathave jurisdiction tohearappeals in IPdisputesalsohaveinformalspecialistIPchambers.822Forexample,intheParisCourtofAppealchambers5-1and5-2typicallydealwith IPdisputes.Thecourtsofappealalsohave twotypesofpresidents:apresidentofaCourtofAppeal,alsocalleda‘firstpresident’,andapresidentofachamberataCourtofAppeal.A‘firstpresident’exercises administrative functions and grants applications for a preliminary injunctive relief,823 while a president of a chamber manages the affairs of his or her respective chamber.824

809 Jacques Larrieu and Nicolas Morvilliers, ‘La Création des Pôles Spécialisés en Matière de Propriété Intellectuelle et de Concurrence’, LaSpécialisationDesJuges(Pressesdel’UniversitéToulouse2012).810 TheCouncilofState (‘Conseild’État’) isoneof thecentral institutionsof theFrenchconstitutionalsystem. Itadvisesthegovernmentonthe processofpreparingnewlegislationandconstitutesacourtofthefinal instanceintheadministrativeproceedings(formoreinformationsee Conseild’État,‘LesMissionsduConseild’État’(Conseild’État)<https://www.conseil-etat.fr/le-conseil-d-etat/missions>accessed23September2020).811 ArticlesL716-3 (trademark); L615-17 (patents); L622-7 (semi-conductor topographies); L521-3-1 (designs); L623-31 (plant varieties); L331-1 (copyright);L622-7 (protectionof topographiesofsemi-conductors) IPC.This isdoneby introducingamendmentswithin the regulatorypart oftheCJO,adoptedbyDecreen°78-329du16.03.1978.InFrance,statutoryactsaredividedintothreetypes:thelegislativepart(‘partielégislative’), adoptedbytheGeneralAssemblyandtheSenate;theregulatorypart(‘partieréglementaire’),adoptedbyadecreeoftheCouncilofStateorbya decreeof theprimeminister.Theprovisionsof the legislativepartalwaysstartwitha letter ‘L’before thenumberof theprovision,while the provisionsoftheregulatorypartstartwith‘R’,ifissuedbytheCouncilofStateor‘D’ifissuedbytheprimeminister.812 Article R212-3 CJO.813 ‘Chambresdutribunal’.814 Ministère de la justice, ‘L’organisation duTribunal deParis’, <https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/75/lorganisation-du-tribunal-de-paris> accessed 23 September 2020.815 Thefunctionofthepresidentofthechamberisfulfilledbyeithera‘firstvicepresident’(‘premiervice-président’),avice-president,orbythejudge of the chamber that has the higher rank (Article R212-3 CJO). 816 YvesStrickler,Procédurecivile(5thed.,Larcier2014)243.817 Articles834ffand845ffCCP.FurtherdetailsonthiswillfollowinSection2.1.818 ibid Article 812.819 Article R212-3 CJO. This will be discussed in more detail in Section 2.1.820 ibidTableIV.821 ibid Article R312-1.822 MinistèredelaJustice, ‘Compétencesdeschambres’(Coursappel,3July2018)<https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/competences-des- chambres>accessed23September2020.823 Article R311-4 CJO.824 Forinstance,thepresidentsofthechambersareinvolvedinthedistributionofcaseswithinthechamber(articleR312-11-1CJO).

FRAN

CE


TheCourtofCassationisthefinalinstancecourt.Ithassixchambersintotal:threecivil,onecommercial,one social and one criminal.825WhiletherearenospecialisedIPchamberswithinthestructureoftheCourt,copyrightdisputesaredealtwithbythefirstcivilchamberoftheCourt,whereby,atthetimeofwritingofthisreport,twoofthejudgesinthatchamber,i.e.AlainGirardetandSophieCanas,specialiseincopyright.826 Furthermore, patent, trade marks, designs, geographical indications and protection of semiconductortopographydisputesaredecidedbythecommercialchamber,827inwhichatleastonejudge,SophieDarbois,is specialised in patent and trade mark cases.828

1.2. Criteria for selection of judgesInFrance,thesystemofjudicialappointmentsisbasedonthenotionofthe‘judicialcareer’–mostofthejudgesarerecruitedjustaftertheirstudiesanddevotetheirentirecareerstothejudicialoffice.829 The process ofnomination is carriedout through theso-called ‘competitive examination’, organisedby theNationalSchool of Judiciary.830 There are four types of competitive examinations, each dedicated to a differentcandidates’group.Thefirstexaminationgroupcomprisesuniversitygraduateswhohavecompletedafour-yearuniversity lawdegree,and involvesaseriesof testsof legalknowledge,open-mindedness,generalculture, analytical and communicative skills, and a 31-month long training.831 The second examination groupisdedicatedtocandidateswithanon-lawuniversitydegreewhohavebeenpublicofficialsforatleastfouryears,andinvolvesthesametestsandthesameamountoftrainingasthefirstexaminationgroup.832 Thethirdexaminationgroupcomprisescandidates fromthepublicorprivatesector in thefieldsof law,economicsorhumansciences.Itinvolvessimilar,butlesstheoreticaltests,and31-monthlongtraining.833 Thefourthexaminationgroup,theso-called‘complementaryexamination’,isdedicatedtocandidateswithajudicial,administrative,economicorsocialbackgroundpossessing‘particularqualifications’forthejudicialfunction,andinvolvesonlyfivemonthsoftrainingandasimplifiedversionofthetest.834 From the pool of theNationalSchoolgraduates,theMinisterofJusticeselectscandidatesandmakesaproposalfortheirappointment.835TheHighCounciloftheJudiciary836 puts forward a positive or negative recommendation on the proposal.837Onthebasisofthese,thepresidentoftheFrenchRepublicappointsjudges.Thenominationprocess isdifferent in relation to thepresidentsof the tribunals,presidentsof thecourtsofappealandjudgesoftheCourtofCassation,whoarenominatedbythepresidentupontheHighCouncil’sproposal.838 JudgeswhodealwithIPdisputesdonothavetomeetanyadditionalselectioncriteria.Inparticular,nopriorIP-relatedexperienceorscientificbackgroundisrequired.839

Judges inFrancemustundertakefivedaysofcontinuingprofessional trainingperyear inorder tokeepabreast of developments in the law.840Specificelementsof the trainingcanbechosenby the individualjudges,butmustberelatedto theircurrent functions.841Consequently,eachyear judgesdealingwith IPcaseswouldoftenundertakeatleastsometrainingdirectlyrelatedtoIP.Inthisrespect,judgesmayalsotakeadvantageofthetrainingattheEuropeanlevel,forexample,attheEuropeanUnionIntellectualPropertyOfficeregardingtrademarksanddesigns842orattheEuropeanPatentOfficeregardingpatents.843However,no particular form of training is imposed on the judges.

825 CourdeCassation,‘AbouttheCourt’<https://www.courdecassation.fr/about_the_court_9256.html>accessed23September2020.826 LexbaseHebdoéditionaffairesn˚429of25June2015(n°N8018BUI).827 CourdeCassation,‘Compétencesdeschambres’<https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/competences_chambres_7467/>accessed 23 September 2020.828 LexbaseHebdoéditionaffairesn˚429of25June2015(n°N8018BUI).829 ‘L’écolenationaledelamagistrature’,CourdeCassation,‘Lerecrutementetl’avancementdesjugesfrançais’(CourdeCassation,10May2007) <https://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG/File/pdf_2007/10-05-2007/10-05-2007_mcKee_fr.pdf>accessed23September2020.830 ibid 2.831 ibid.832 ibid.833 ibid.834 Justicefr,‘ÉTUDIANTS’(Écolenationaledelamagistrature)<https://www.enm.justice.fr/?q=Devenir-magistrat-etudiants>accessed23September2020.835 ConseilSuperieurMagistrature,‘Missions&Attributions’(ConseilSuperieurMagistrature)<http://www.conseil-superieur-magistrature.fr/le- csm/nos-missions>accessed23September2020.836 ‘ConseilSuperieurMagistrature’TranslationaspertheConstitutionalCouncil’swebsite(ConseilConstitutionnel,‘ConstitutionofOctober4, 1958’(ConseilConstitutionnel)<https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/sites/default/files/as/root/bank_mm/anglais/constiution_anglais_ oct2009.pdf>accessed23September2020).837 Article 65 of the French Constitution 1958.838 SenatFR,‘Projetdeloiorganiquerelatifàlacarrièredesmagistrats’(Senatfr)<https://www.senat.fr/rap/l00-075/l00-0752.html>accessed23 September 2020.839 LexbaseHebdoéditionaffairesn˚429of25June2015(n°N8018BUI).840 ENMJusticefr,‘Accèsaudroit:commentsontforméslesmagistrats’(Écolenationaledelamagistrature)<https://www.enm.justice.fr/actu- 24052019-acces-au-droit-comment-sont-formes-les-magistrats>accessed23September2020.841 Article51-1oftheDécretn°72-355du4mai1972relatifàl’Ecolenationaledelamagistrature.842 Lexbase Hebdo édition affairesn˚429of25June2015(n°N8018BUI).843 Lexbase Hebdo édition affairesn˚429of25June2015(n°N8018BUI).

FRAN

CE


1.3. Location of the IP Court and number of judgesAt first instance, the tribunals within the civil branch are exclusively competent to hear IP cases. Inparticular,tenspecificallydesignatedtribunalsarecompetenttohearcasesrelatedtocopyright,844 designs andmodels,845trademarksandgeographicalindications.ThesetencourtsarelocatedinBordeaux,Lille,Lyon,Marseille,Nanterre,Nancy,Paris,Rennes,Strasbourg,andFort-de-France.846 The list of the tribunals competent inrelationtoplantvarieties is identical,withtheexceptionofthetribunals inFort-de-Franceand Nanterre, which are replaced by the tribunals in Limoges and Toulouse.847 The Paris tribunal hasthe exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes related to patents, utility models, supplementary protectioncertificates,semiconductortopographiesprotectioncases,848EUtrademarksandcommunitydesigns.849 IntheParistribunal850in2018,outofthe341judgesofthecourt,12judgesweredealingwithIPdisputes.851

Thecourtsofappealcompetenttodealwithappealsinrelationtocopyrights,designsandmodels,trademarks, and geographical indications are located in Aix-en-Provence, Bordeaux, Douai, Lyon, Versailles,Nancy,Paris,Rennes,Colmar,andFort-de-France.852 Appeals in relation to plant varieties are heard in the sametencourts,but insteadoftheFort-de-FranceCourtofAppeal, thecompetentcourtsofappealarelocated in Limoges andToulouse.Disputes related to patents, utilitymodels, supplementary protectioncertificates, semiconductordesignprotection, EU trademarksandcommunitydesignsareheardat theParisCourtofAppeal.TheParisCourtofAppealhastwochambers,bothdealingwithappealsconcerningdecisionsissuedindisputesinvolvingcopyrights,patents,andotherindustrialpropertyrights,aswellasappeals against preliminary injunctive reliefs granted in such disputes.853 Only a limited number of courts of appealarecompetenttoreviewdecisionsoftheFrenchIPOffice,andthesearelocatedinAix-en-Provence,Bordeaux,Douai,Lyon,Versailles,Nancy,Paris,Rennes,Colmar,andFort-de-France.854

TheCourtofCassation is located inParis.Thecivilandcommercialchambersof thecourtconsider IPcases.Accordingtothemostrecentsources,theapproximatetotalnumberofjudgesinthisCourtis225,includingatleastthreejudgeswhospecialiseinIP.855

Finally, there are eight Specialised Interregional Authorities dealingwith complex offences involving IPrightsinfringement.ThesearelocatedinParis,Lyon,Marseille,Lille,Rennes,Bordeaux,NancyandFort-de-France.856

II. Rules of procedureInproceedingsconcerningIPrights,theFrenchcourtsapplythegeneralrulesofproceduresetoutintheCodeofCivilProcedure1974(CCP),857 the Civil Code 1804 and the Code of Judicial Organisation 1978 (CJO).858 Furthermore,theIntellectualPropertyCode1992(IPC)859alsocontainssomeIP-specificprocedures,inter alia,forobtainingatitle,securingevidenceininfringementcasesorstoppinginfringementsinrelationtopatents,860plantvarieties,861semiconductortopographies,862designs,863geographicalindications,864 trade marks,865 and copyrights in databases.866

844 TheFrenchterminologyis‘propriétélittéraireetartistique’.845 NotethatinFrance‘designs’arereferredtoas‘dessinsetmodèles’.Thereisnosubstantivedifferencebetween‘dessin’and‘modèle’.846 ArticleD211-6-1andTableVICJO.847 ibidArticleD211-5andTableV848 ibidArticleD211-6.849 ibidArticleD211-7.850 AtthattimetheParistribunalwasreferredtoasthe‘Parishighcourt’(n798).851 TribunaldeGrandeInstanceParis,‘Chiffresclés’<https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files/2020-04/TGI-Depliants- statistiques%202020-VF.pdf>accessed23September2020;LexbaseHebdoéditionaffairesn 4̊29of25June2015(n°N8018BUI).852 TableIVCJO.853 Therelevantchambersare5-1and5-2(Coursappel,‘PÔLE5-Vieéconomique’(Coursappel,3July2018) <https://www.cours-appel.justice.fr/paris/pole-5-vie-economique>accessed23September2020).854 ArticleR-419-1andTableXVICJO.855 ‘Présentation’(CourdeCassation)<https://www.courdecassation.fr/institution_1/presentation_2845/>accessed23September2020.856 ArticleD47-3oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure1957.857 AdoptedbyDecreen°75-1123of05.12.1975.858 AdoptedbyDecreen°78-329of16.03.1978.859 AdoptedbyDecreen°92-597of1.07.1992.860 ArticleL-615-3IPC.861 ibid Article L623-27.862 ibid Article L622-7. 863 ibid Article L521-6.864 ibid Article L722-3.865 ibid Article L716-6.866 ibid Article L343-2.

FRAN

CE


2.1. Composition of the court in IP casesGenerally,atthetribunals,whichareexclusivelycompetentinIPdisputesatfirstinstance,casesareheardinapanel,867 typically comprising a president of the panel868 and two judges.869 Exceptions to this general rule havebeen introducedby statutes and court practice for the sakeof trial efficiency.870 If the objectofadisputeorthenatureofalegalproblemaresuitabletobeheardbyasinglejudge,thepresidentofatribunal or another judge delegated by the president for that purpose may delegate any such matter to a single judge.871 Such decisions of the president are discretionary.872Ontheotherhand,evenifthecasewasallocatedtoasinglejudge,thepartieshavetherighttorequestthetransferofthecasebacktothepanel.873 Sucharequestmaybefiledwiththepresidentofthetribunalbyonlyoneparty,i.e.noagreementofthepartiesisrequired.Oncethepresidentofthetribunalreceivessucharequest,heorshemusttransferthecase to a panel.874 The transfer of the case back to the panel may also be done ex officio by the president of the tribunal or the judge delegated by the president for that purpose.875 Inaddition,evenifthecaseisconsideredbythepanel,aso-called‘pre-trial’judge876isdesignatedtodealwithmostproceduralmatters,including a preliminary injunctive relief and case management.877

Furthermore, aswasalreadynoted, thepresidentsof the tribunalshave thepower todecideoncertainmatters unilaterally, including on preliminary injunctive reliefs either inter partes or ex parte.878 The president of the court may delegate other judges to deal with such matters on his or her behalf.879However,thepresidentsofthetribunals,orthejudgesthusdesignated,willonlybecompetentinthisrespectifthemain proceedings have not been commenced.880Ifthemainproceedingsarepending,theapplicationwillbedecided,dependingonthetypeofthemeasureinquestion,bythesinglejudgewhoconsidersthedispute,a pre-trial judge or by the president of a chamber to which it was allocated.881

Attheappeallevel,casesaregenerallyheardbyapanelofthreejudges.882Ifacaseisparticularlycomplexit isheardbyapaneloffive883orseven judges,884 and where it is re-heard after a ruling of the Court of Cassation,thecaseisheardbyapaneloffivejudges.885 A president of a Court of Appeal has the power to grant preliminary injunctive reliefs during appellate proceedings both inter partes and ex parte.886

Asageneralrule,thenumberofjudgeshearingacaseattheCourtofCassationisthree.887However,thereisapossibilitytohavethecaseheardbyafive-judgepanelinsuitablecircumstances,typicallyifthecaseraisesadifficultlegalissue.888Exceptionally,significantcasesthatcouldleadtoasubstantialchangeofprecedent may be considered by a panel of 19 judges.889

867 Article L212-1 CJO.868 Theroleofthepresidentofthepanel isusuallyfulfilledbythepresidentofthecourtorbythepresidentofachambertowhichthecasewas allocated(formoreinformationonthepresidents,seeSection1.1).869 ibid Article L212-3 in conjunction with R212-7 CJO. 870 Strickler (n 816) 63-64.871 Article812ffCPC;ArticleL212-1ffandR212-9CJO.Oncethecaseisallocatedtoasinglejudge,thepresidentofthetribunalorthepresidentof the chamber decide on the distribution of the case to a particular judge (Article 212-2 CJO).872 Article R212-9 CJO.873 ibid Article L212-2.874 ibid Article L212-2.875 ibid Articles R212-8 and R212-9. 876 ‘jugedemiseenêtat’.877 Article789CCP.878 ibidArticles834ffand845ff;thiswillbeexpandeduponinSection2.4.4.879 ArticleL121-3CJO,andotherspecificprovisions,forexampleArticleR212-9CJOinrelationtothetransferofcasestoasinglejudgeorbacktothepanel.880 Articles789,834and845CCP;formoreinformationseeSection2.4.881 ibid;forfurtherinformationseeSection2.4.882 Article L312-2ff CJO.883 ibid Article R312-9.884 ibid Article R312-11-1.885 ibid Article R312-9.886 ibid Article R311-4.887 ibid Article L431-1. 888 CourdeCassation,‘L’organisationdelaCourdeCassation’(CourdeCassation) <https://www.courdecassation.fr/institution_1/presentation_2845/organisation_cour_cassation_30990.html> accessed 23 September 2020.889 ibid.

FRAN

CE


2.2. Jurisdiction in IP casesAswasmentionedabove,IPdisputesarewithinthecompetenceofthecivilbranchoftheFrenchjudiciary.Anexceptiontothisareunfaircompetition,whichmayalsobedecidedbythecommercialcourts,890 unless suchdisputesareconnectedtoanIPrightsensu stricto(forexampleapatent,trademarketc.).Inthelattercase,wherethereisthe‘IPconnection’,oneofthetribunalsthathastheexclusivecompetencetohearcasesrelatedtotheseIPrightswillhavetheauthoritytohearthedispute.891Insofarasatradesecretdisputemayalsobequalifiedasanunfaircompetitiondispute,itmayalsobeconsideredbythedesignatedtribunals.Ifatradesecretdisputedoesnotsimultaneouslyconstituteanunfaircompetitiondispute,itwillbeconsideredby the civil or commercial courts in accordance with the rules explained above.892

Therearetentribunalsthathavetheexclusive jurisdictionover IPdisputes.893Amongthesecourts, theParistribunalisexclusivelycompetenttoheardisputesrelatedtopatents,utilitymodels,supplementaryprotectioncertificatesorsemiconductordesignprotection,894aswellasEUtrademarksandCommunitydesigns.895 Other IP rights, including copyrights, designs, trade marks, geographical indications andplant varieties are allocated among the ten tribunalsmentioned above, including the Paris tribunal.896 The allocation of disputes among the designated tribunals is carried out in accordance with the rules of territorial jurisdiction.897

InFrance,thereisnoseparateprocedurefortherecognitionoftrademarksas‘well-known’.Thus,thisiscarried out on a case-by-case basis.898Consequently,thetentribunalsdealingwithtrademarkcaseswillbeexclusivelycompetenttodecideontherecognitionoftrademarksaswell-known,togetherwiththeFrenchIPOfficeandthetencourtsofappeal.

AppealsagainstthedecisionsoftheFrenchIPOfficeconcerninggrants,refusalstograntandmaintenanceoflegaltitlesofregisteredIPrightsareheardbythespeciallydesignatedcourtsofappeal.899Moreover,thecompetenceofthesedesignatedcourtsofappealextendstoothertypesofmatters,includingdecisionson the damages caused by wrongful decisions of the IP Office,900 or decisions made in the course of proceedingsbeforetheIPOffice,forexampleconcerningtherefusaltoadmitaFrenchtranslationofpatentdocuments.901Thecourtsofappealarealsoexclusivelycompetenttodecideontheofficialrecognitionofgeographical indications.902ThejurisdictionofaspecificCourtofAppealoversuchdisputewilldependonthedomicileofthepersonfilingtheapplication.903

TheexactscopeoftheexclusivejurisdictionofthedesignatedtribunalsinrelationtoeachtypeofIPrightisdefinedbytherelevantsubstantivelawprovisions.904 These provisions are drafted in the same fashion and statethattheexclusivejurisdictionofarespectivetribunalcomprisesallcivillitigationrelatingtotheIPrightinquestion,includingmattersthatsimultaneouslyincludeanunfaircompetitionelement.905 Bearing this in mind,whenestablishingjurisdictionoveranIP-relateddisputeonemusttakeintoaccountthemeaningoftheterm‘relatingtoanIPright’,andwhetherthedisputesimultaneouslycoversunfaircompetitionelement–thelinkbetweenIPrightssensu stricto and unfair competition disputes.

890 Aswell as the specialised commercial divisions of the tribunals, or by the civil courts competent under the rules ofmaterial and territorial jurisdictionestablished in theCodeofCommerce. Ingeneral, the jurisdictionof thecommercialcourts (orcommercialdivisionsof tribunals) coversdisputesrelatingtodealingsbetween‘merchants’(‘commerçants’;accordingtoArtL121-1oftheCodeofCommerce2000,a‘merchant’is apersonorentitycarryingoutactsofcommerceandwhomakethisherorhisusualprofession),disputesrelatingtocompaniesanddisputes relatingtoactsofcommerce(‘actesdecommerce’;ArtL721-3oftheCodeofCommerce2000).Incaseswhereneitheroftheforegoingconditions isfulfilled,thecasewillbeconsideredbythecivilcourts,eitherunderthegeneralrulesofjurisdictionorspecialrulesforIPdisputes.Inrelation to disputes between an employer and an employee, the employment tribunals (‘conseils de prud’hommes’) are competent if the obligations relatingtounfaircompetitionortradesecretsariseunderanemploymentcontract(ArtL1411-1oftheLabourCode1973(‘Codedutravail’)).891 ArticlesL716-3(trademark);L615-17(patents);L521-3-1(designs);L623-31(plantvarieties);L331-1(copyright);L622-7(protectionoftopographies ofsemi-conductors);L331-1(copyrights)IPC.892 See (n 890).893 Décretn°2009-1205du9octobre2009fixantlesiègeetleressortdesjuridictionsenmatièredepropriétéintellectuelle.894 ArticleD211-6CJO.895 ibidArticleD211-7.896 ibidD211-6-1andTableVI;note,thatinrelationtoplantvarietiesthelistofthecompetentcourtsvariesslightly(seeSectionI.3.).897 Articles42-46CCP;thecircuitsassignedtoeachtribunalareindicatedinannexesVandVItotheCJO.898 Casscom20March2012,no11-10.514.899 ArticleR411-19IPCandAnnexXVICJO.900 Casscom13May1997,no95-13.841.901 Casscom29November2011,no10-25.277.902 ArticleR411-19IPC;ArticleD311-8CJO.903 ibid.904 ArticlesL716-3(trademark);L615-17(patents);L521-3-1(designs);L623-31(plantvarieties);L331-1(copyright);L622-7(protectionoftopographies ofsemi-conductors);L331-1(copyrights)IPC.905 ibid;‘Lesactionscivilesetlesdemandesrelativesà[…],ycomprislorsqu’ellesportentégalementsurunequestionconnexedeconcurrencedéloyale’.

FRAN

CE


Despiteasimilarwordinginthesubstantivelawprovisions,thereisnosingleharmonisedinterpretationoftheterm‘relatingtoanIPright’.Inthemostgeneralterms,thecourtwilltreatasdisputesrelatingtoIPrightsanydisputesthatrequirethecourttoapplysubstantialprovisionsoftheIPlaw.906Thus,thetypicalexamplesofIPdisputeswouldbeinfringementsandinvalidityofIPrightsfallingwithintheexclusivejurisdictionofone of the designated tribunals.907Basedontheseprinciples,adisputeconcerningacontractoveranIPrightwillconstituteanIPdisputeandnotacontractlawdispute,ifthecourtmustapplyasubstantiveIPlawprovision.Thiswillbethecase,forexample,whereadeterminationofthecontractualobligationsrequirestheassessmentofthevalidityofanIPright.908Inthisrespect,theCourtofCassationemphasisedthattheidentityofthepartiestothedisputeisirrelevant,andthefactthatapatentproprietorisnotapartytoadisputedoesnotexcludethedisputefrombeing‘relatedtoanIPright’andthuswithinthecompetenceofthe designated tribunals.909Ontheotherhand,whereadisputerestsongenerallawofcontract,itwillnotconstituteanIPdispute,evenifsomekindofIP-relationexists,forexample,ifthecaserelatestoalicensingagreement.910TheIP-relationwillalsonotbesufficientto justifythejurisdictionofthespecialisedcourtwhere the dispute concerns a contractual obligation of a party to transfer access codes to a copyright-protected database911 or a contractual liability of a party under a publishing contract.912

WhenitcomestoalinkbetweenIPandunfaircompetitiondisputes,913 the French law divides the subject matter intothreetypesofdisputes:(i)IPsensu stricto,i.e.casesconcerningonlypatents,trademarks,copyrightandother‘traditional’IPrights;(ii)mixedcasesthatinvolvebothIPandunfaircompetitionelements;and(iii)unfaircompetition disputes sensu stricto.ThefirsttwogroupsaredealtwithbythedesignatedtribunalsunderthespecialprovisionsoftheCodeofIntellectualPropertymentionedabove.914Unfaircompetitiondisputessensu strictofalloutsideoftheexclusivejurisdictionofthedesignatedtribunals,andinsteadareconsideredbythecommercial or civil courts competent under the rules of material and territorial jurisdiction established in the Code of Commerce.915Consequently,ifacaseconcernsanunfaircompetitionpracticesuchasdenigration,916 whichatthesametimeinvolvestheuseofsignssimilartotheregisteredtrademarks,thedisputewillconstitutea trade mark dispute, subject to the jurisdiction of the specialised tribunals.917 If, on the other hand, thedenigratingpracticehasnorelationtoatrademark,thedisputewillbeheardbythecommercialorcivilcourts.

The same rules apply to the relation between sensu stricto IPdisputesand tradesecrets,provided thattheviolationofatradesecretmayalsobequalifiedasanactofunfaircompetition.If,ontheotherhand,atradesecretdisputedoesnotinvolveanyelementlinkedtootherIPrights,suchasforexamplepatent,itwillfalloutsideoftheexclusivejurisdictionofthedesignatedtribunals,andwillbeconsidered,butbythecommercial or civil courts.918

Thejurisdictionofthetendesignatedtribunalsisnotdependentonthestatusoftheclaimant.Therefore,anIPownerasanaturalpersonmayprotecthisorherrightbeforethespecialisedIPjudiciary.Incontrast,thelegalstatusoftheclaimantisrelevanttotheassessmentwhethercommercialcourtsarecompetent,asoneofthegroundsjustifyingthejurisdictionofthecourtsisthatthepartiesare‘merchants’.919 The latter will only be of importance in relation to types of disputes that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the commercialcourt,i.e.,unfaircompetitiondisputes.Thelawdoesnotmakethejurisdictionofthedesignatedtribunalsdependentonwhethertheclaimantistheauthorofthecopyright, i.e.,thecreatorofawork,orothertypeofcopyrightowner.ArticleL332-1IPC,establishingthelegalstandinginthecaseofcopyrightinfringement,refersnotonlytotheauthorbutalsotoparties‘havingaright’920or‘havingacause’,921 which includes,forinstance,successorsintitle.

906 Cassciv(1)28June2018,no17-28.924.907 ArticlesL615-17inconjunctionwithL615-1andL615-8-1IPC.908 PierreSirinellietal.,Codedelapropriétéintellectuelle2014(14eédition,Dalloz2014)607.909 Casscom16February2016,no14-24.295.910 ibid.911 CANancy,28March2018,no17/02869.912 CALyon,6June2019,no19/01253.913 One should note that in France unfair competition is not regulated separately and constitutes a special form of a civil responsibility governed byArticle1240oftheCivilCodeMaterialsoftheCourtofCassation,availableontheCourdecassation,‘Concurrencedéloyale’(Courde Cassation,10September2013)<https://www.courdecassation.fr/publications_26/rapport_annuel_36/rapport_2013_6615/livre_4_ jurisprudence_cour_6619/arrets_rendus_chambres_6675/activites_economiques_commerciales_financieres_6679/concurrence_ deloyale_29243.html>accessed23September2020.914 Casscom16February2016,no14-24.295;ArticlesL716-3(trademark);L615-17(patents);L521-3-1(designs);L623-31(plantvarieties);L331-1 (copyright);L622-7(protectionoftopographiesofsemi-conductors)IPC.915 ArticlesL721-3oftheCommercialCode2000;see(n890).916 TheFrenchterminologyis‘dénigrement’,i.e.publicactofunfaircriticismtowardsacompetitor(Cassciv(1)27November2013,12-24.651).917 Casscom20February2007,no04-20646.918 Article L721-3ff in conjunction with Article L151-1 of the Commercial Code 2000. 919 ibid.920 Frenchterminologyis‘ayantsdroit’.921 Frenchterminologyis‘ayantscause’.

FRAN

CE


The designated tribunals do not have exclusive jurisdiction over IP-related administrative and criminalmatters.922Also,cybercrimeandinformationsecuritymattersfalloutsideoftheirjurisdictionandareheardby the criminal courts.923Astotheadministrativedisputes,inFrancetheygenerallyfallwithinthejurisdictionof the administrative tribunals.924Disputesoverwhetheraspecificsubjectmatterfallswithinthejurisdictionof the civil or administrative courts are decided by the Conflicts tribunal.925Asthetribunalnoted,itisfortheadministrativejudiciarytoassessesthelegalityoftheactivitiesofpublicadministration,926 and thus in suchIP-relatedcasestheexclusivejurisdictionofthedesignatedtribunalsislimited.Itcanalsobelimitedby law.927Accordingtothegeneralrule,wherethecivilcourtfacesaquestionthatiswithinthejurisdictionof theadministrative court, i.e., a question concerning the legality of activitiesperformedby thepublicadministration,itmustrequestthecompetentadministrativecourttodecideonthelegalityoftheseactivitiesin the form of a prejudicial question.928 The civil court will be able to decide on a prejudicial question on its own,ifalineofjurisprudenceexpresslyandmanifestlyallowsthequestiontobedecidedbythecivilcourtand not by the administrative court.929Conversely,iftheadministrativecourtfindsthatitsrulingdependsonamatterthatcanonlyberesolvedbythecivilcourt,forexampleanIPmatter,itmayaskthecivilcourttoruleon this matter as a prejudicial question.930Insuchcircumstances,thetribunalthathasexclusivejurisdictionover thatspecific IP rightwill decide theprejudicialquestion referred.Furthermore, the lawestablishescertainspecialprovisionsinrelationtopatentsandplantvarieties,i.e.remediesagainstadministrativeactsoftheministercompetentinrelationtothesetypesofIPwhicharisefromhisorheradministrativeauthorityinrelationtopatentsandplantvarieties,areexpresslyexcludedfromthejurisdictionofthetribunalsandfallwithin the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.931

The review of decisions of the customs administration932 in relation to the customs disputes involving an IPelementtypicallyfallwithinthejurisdictionofthecivilbranch,specificallytribunals.However,incertaincircumstances these cases may also be dealt with by the administrative courts933 or the criminal courts.934 Inparticular,ifthecaseconcernspayments,securities,orreimbursementofdebtsofanynatureenforcedby the customs administration or any other customs matter which is not under the jurisdiction of criminal courts,theciviltribunalswouldbecompetent.935Alternatively,ifthematterinvolvesanassessmentofthelegalityofanadministrativeact,itwillbedealtwithbytheadministrativecourts.936Furthermore,aspecificjurisdictionalarrangementwasintroducedinrelationtoimportsandexportsofIP-infringinggoods.TheseactivitiesareprohibitedunderthegeneralprovisionsoftheCustomsCode,937andthespecificprovisionsoftheIPC.938Theprohibitedactivitiesmayresultintheseizureoftheimportedorexportedinfringinggoodsandfines,939 which are enforced by the customs authorities.940ThecustomsauthoritieswillseizetheinfringinggoodsonlyuponawrittenapplicationoftheIPrightholderortheexclusivelicensee.941

922 ItmustbenotedthatinFranceacertaindegreeofspecialisationwasintroducedinrelationtocriminalcasesconcerningIPrightsinfringement, suchasmisrepresentationastotheownershipofanIPrightoraknowinginfringementofanIPright(ArticleL615-12andL615-14IPCinrelation topatents.IdenticalprovisionsexistinrelationtootherIPrights).IfacaseconcerningprosecutionofanoffencepunishableundertheIntellectual PropertyCodeisofconsiderablecomplexity,especiallyduetothenumberofthepartiesaccused,theaccessoriesorthegeographicalextentof thepunishableactivity,thecasemaybetransferredtotheso-calledSpecialisedInterregionalAuthorities(‘jurisdictionsinterrégionales specialisées’asperArt704oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure1957,adoptedbyLawn°57-1426of31.12.1957).Decisionsastowhethertotransfer acasearemadebythejudgeofatribunaluponanapplicationofaprosecutor(art706-77oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure1957).These authoritiesarenotaseparategroupofinstitutions.Instead,theyconstituteajurisdictionalarrangementallowingtribunalstoexercisejurisdiction overmanydistrictsinordertoensuregreaterspecialisation(Art704oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure1957).923 Article 323-1ff of the Criminal Code 1992.924 TheFrenchterminologyis‘tribunauxadministratifs’;ArticleL311-1CodeoftheAdministrativeJustice2000,(‘Codedejusticeadministrative’).925 TheFrenchterminologyis‘tribunaldesconflits’;TheConflictsTribunalisaninstitutioncomposedofanequalnumberofmembersoftheCouncil ofStateandtheCourtofCassation.Itstaskistodecideoncompetenceconflictsbetweenthecivilandadministrativejudiciary(Tribunalconflits, ‘LeTribunaldesconflits’(TribunalConflits)<http://www.tribunal-conflits.fr/>accessed23September2020).926 Suchactivitiesarereferredtoas‘administrativeacts’(theFrenchterminologyis‘actesadministratifs’).927 TribunaldesConflits9May2016,C4048.928 TribunaldesConflits17October2011,C3828-3829,SCEAduCheneauc.INAPORC.929 ibid.930 Article 771-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice 2000.931 ArticleL615-17IPC;asanexampleoftheminister’sauthorityonemightgivethedecisiontoauthorisethepublicationofapatentapplication underArticleL612-9IPC.932 TheFrenchterminologyis‘l’administrationdesdouanes’.933 Article357bisoftheCustomsCode1948;TribunaldesConflits6July2015no15-04.012.934 Article 356-357 of the Customs Code 1948.935 Article L 357bis of the Customs Code 1948.936 TribunaldesConflits6July2015,no15-04.012.937 Articles414and428oftheCustomsCode1948,(TheFrenchterminologyis‘Codedesdouanes’).938 ArticlesL722-9(geographicalindications),L716-8(trademarks),L623-36(plantvarieties)L614-32(patents),L521-14(designs),L335-10(copyright)IPC.939 TheFrenchterminologyis‘laretenue’.940 Article 419 of the Customs Code 1948.941 ArticlesL722-9(geographicalindications),L716-8(trademarks),L623-36(plantvarieties)L614-32(patents),L521-14(designs),L335-10(copyright)IPC.

FRAN

CE


Thecustomsauthoritiesmusttheninformtheprosecutor,therightholder(orthelicensee)andtheowneroftheseizedgoods.Withintendays,countingfromthedateoftheseizureofthegoods,therightholder(orthelicensee)musteitherbringanorderissuedbythepresidentofthetribunalorderingtheseizureofthegoods,orstartcivilorcriminalproceedingsandpresentproofthatheorshehaslodgedsecuritytosecurethe interestof theownerof theseizedgoods.942 The civil claims and applications for a civil preliminary injunctivereliefarefiledwiththedesignatedtribunals.

The jurisdiction over decisions of the tax authorities is split between the administrative courts and the civilbranch,or tribunals,943 depending on the type of dispute.944 The law does not establish any special jurisdictionof the tribunalsover taxmatters involving IP rights. InFrance, the lawplaces theso-called‘fiscal IP law’945 within the administrative law rather than private law regime.946Asa result, thefiscal IPlawremainsunder thesole jurisdictionof theadministrativecourtsandtribunals, rather thanunder theexclusivejurisdictionofthedesignatedtribunals.ThecompetentcourtsmaydevelopseparatedefinitionsofIPtermsforthepurposesoftaxlaw;forinstance,atrademarkwasdefinedas‘asignbymeansofwhichaproducer characterises his or her products and a trader characterises the objects of his or her trade’.947 The registrationofsuchasignasatrademarkwithanIPOfficeisnotrequired.948 The administrative courts and alltribunalsarealsocompetenttodecideonthequestionoftaxliabilityresultingfromIPrightslicensing,independentlyfromthedesignatedtribunalsthathaveexclusivejurisdictionoverIPdisputes.949

2.3. Evidence in IP casesUndertheFrenchlawonevidence,eachpartymustprovethefactsnecessaryforthesuccessofhisorherclaim.950 Thisruledoesnotapplytocaseswhereapartyreliesonlegalorfactualpresumptions,someofwhicharefurtherexplainedbelow.Inaddition, ifapartyrefusestoexpressitspositiononaquestionoffactwithout a legitimate reason, the courtmaydrawconclusions fromsucha silence.951 Evidence may bebrought, asageneral rule, in any formwhatsoever (‘principleof libertyof proof’).952 Also this rule is notabsoluteanddoesnotapplywhereaspecial formofevidence isrequired, for instance, toprovetheconclusionofa legal transaction,which is furtherexplainedbelow.Courtswill refusetoadmitevidenceobtained fraudulently953 and evidence that is not relevant.954

2.3.1. Evidence in electronic formEvidence,includingelectronicevidence,maybeprovidedbyanymeanswhatsoever,unlessthelawstatesotherwise.955Thisisbasedontheso-called‘principleoflibertyofproof’,956 which in this instance means that thecourt,ingeneral,mayadmitanytypeofelectronicevidenceprovidedthatitisrelevant.957Ifelectronicevidenceistakeninthepre-trialphase,theproponentmustalsohavealegitimateinterest.958 As a result of theprincipleoflibertyofproof,therearenospecificrulesofauthenticationofelectronicevidence.Therefore,emailsexchangedbetweentheparties,959aswellasascreenshotofawebsite,960willconstitutesufficientevidence of the contents of the conversation and will be admitted without any further conditions.

942 ibid.943 NotethatreferencehereistoalltribunalsinFranceandnotonlytothespeciallydesignatedtribunalsforIPmatters.944 ArticlesL199andL281ffoftheBookofFiscalProcedure1938,(TheFrenchterminologyis‘LivredeProcédureFiscale’).945 JacquesAzémaandJean-ChristopheGalloux,Droitdelapropriétéindustrielle-8eéd.(8eédition,Dalloz2017)1.2,§1.946 Conseild’État(10-9)22February2017,no392959.947 AzémaandGalloux(n945).CompareArticleL711-1IPC,whichdefinesatrademarkas‘asignthatservestodistinguishproductsorservicesofa physical or legal person from those of another physical or legal person’.948 Conseild’État(10-9)22February2017,no392959.949 Conseild’État(8-3)23December2011,no341217.950 Article9CCP.951 ibidArticle11;see,forexample,Cassciv(1)30.05.2005.02-20.429952 Conseildesministres,‘RapportauPrésidentdelaRépubliquePortantRéformeduDroitdesContrats,duRégimeGénéraletdelaPreuvedes Obligations’(2016)2016–131.953 Cassciv(2)7October2004,n°03-12.653.954 TheFrenchterminologyis‘pertinent’;art143ff.and202ffCCP;evidencewillberelevantwherethefactsassertedbyapartywould, ifproved, justifyitsdemands(IsabelleDesprésandLaurentDargent,Codedeprocédurecivile2013-104eéd.,CodesDallozUniversitairesetProfessionnels (104eédition,Dalloz2012)228.955 Article 1358 of the Civil Code 1804.956 Conseildesministres,‘RapportAuPrésidentdeLaRépubliquePortantRéformeDuDroitDesContrats,DuRégimeGénéraletdeLaPreuveDes Obligations’(2016)2016–131.957 DesprésandDargent(n954).958 TheFrenchterminologyis ‘motif légitime’;Article145CCP.Theassessmentof ‘legitimate interest’ isunderthediscretionofthecourt,which mustdeterminewhetherthecollectionofevidenceinthepre-trialphase,ratherthanduringthetrial,wouldbe‘useful’(Anne-MarieBatut,‘Étudede Mme Anne-Marie Batut, conseiller référendaire à la Cour de cassation’ (Cour de Cassation, 1999) <https://www.courdecassation.fr/ publications_26/rapport_annuel_36/rapport_1999_91/etudes_documents_93/anne_marie_5790.html>accessed23September2020).959 Casssoc25September2013,n°11-25884;Cassciv(2)13February2014,no12-16.839.960 Casscom15September2015,no14-19.497,concerningatrademarkdisputewhereinfringementwasnotultimatelyestablishedduetothefact that the claimant presented a variety of other evidence which did not amount to a coherent description of the alleged infringement.

FRAN

CE


The liberty of proof principle applies to electronic evidence961andnot toelectronicdocuments,suchaselectronic‘writings’andelectronic‘privatedeeds’whichneedtobeauthenticatedinthemannerdescribedbelow.Awriting‘isasequenceof letters,characters,figuresorofanyothersignsorsymbolshavinganintelligiblemeaning,regardlessofthemeansonwhichtheyarecarried’.962Itisusedtoprovetheconclusionofa legal transactionsuchasacontract,or thatadeclarationhasbeenmade.963 Ingeneral,becauseofthebreadthof thedefinition,writings inanelectronic form(‘electronicwriting’)willgenerallybe treatedas equivalent to paperwritings.However, an electronic document964 will hold the same probative value asapaperwriting,only ‘provided that thepersonwhocreated thedocumentcanbeduly identifiedandthat [the document] can be established and stored in conditions suitable for securing its integrity’.965 Therefore,traditionalandelectronicwritingswillbeconsideredasequivalentonlyiftheidentificationandtheintegrityrequirementsaremet.Therequirementsdonotrelatetotheformofevidenceassuch:theCourtofCassationheldthattextmessages,966 screenshots967 and emails968 may potentially be used as evidence ofa legal transactionordeclaration. Inassessing the identification requirement, thecourtwill look, forexample,athowanemailissigned;mereinitialsmaynotsuffice.969Inassessingtheintegrityrequirement,the court will determine whether all the essential elements of a legal transaction or a declaration can be identifiedwithinthepresentedelectronicevidence.970Importantly,theassessmentoftheserequirementstakes place only if one of the parties denies writing something that is attributed to him or her or declares that he or she does not recognise what is attributed to the author of the writing.971Thisprocedure,referredtoasa‘verificationofwritings’,972iscarriedoutbythefirstinstancejudge,whohastoassesswhethertheidentificationandintegrityrequirementsarefulfilled.Theburdenofproofrestsuponthepartywhichseeksto rely on a particular piece of evidence.973Ifthejudgeisnotsatisfiedthatthetworequirementsaremet,then the assertions of the party that presented the evidence are rejected.974

Another type of electronic document requiring authentication are private deeds.975 They are required to prove, for example, the conclusionof a contract of sale.976 To evaluate the authenticity of an electronic privatedeed,onemustassesswhetheritwasmadeinawaythatensuresreliableidentificationofboththedocument and the legal transaction to which it refers.977 The authenticity is presumed if the document is signedwithaqualifiedelectronicsignature.978

Finally,apartythatwantstohaveelectronicevidenceadmittedmayseektheservicesofbailiffs,979 i.e. court officialsinchargeofservingthepleadingsandothercourtdocuments,enforcement,andmanagementofhearings.Forexample, ifapartywantstosecureevidencefromtheinternet, itmayrequestthatabailiffmakes a screenshot of the indicated website. The advantage of securing evidence with the assistance of a bailiff is that there is a rebuttable presumption of reliability of such evidence.980

961 Cassciv(1)30September2010n°09-68.555;Casssoc25September2013n°11-25884;Casscom3May2012n°11-10.508.962 CourdeCassation,‘Chapitre2–Admissibilitédesmodesdepreuve’(CourdeCassation,2012) <https://www.courdecassation.fr/2012admissibilite_modes_26241.html>accessed23September2020.963 Forexample,ifaruptureofbusinessrelationshipisnotprecededbyadeclarationintheformofawriting,itwillconstituteatortunderArticle L442-6-1oftheCommercialCode2000(Casscom8December2015,no14-18.228).964 TheFrenchterminologyis‘l’écritélectronique’.965 Article 1366 of the Civil Code 1804.966 Cassciv(1)11July2018,n°17-10.458.967 Cass com, 8December 2015, n° 14-18.228; ÉliseTernynck. Le jugedu contrat de travail et la preuve électronique : essai sur l’incidencedes technologiesdel’informationetdelacommunicationsurlecontentieuxprud’homal.UniversitéduDroitetdelaSanté-LilleII,2014.370.968 Cassciv(1)30September2010,n09-68.555.969 TGIParis(4-1)15April2008,n°07/15347.970 TGINanterre(6)6January2006,n°04/08989.971 Article287CCP.972 TheFrenchterminologyis‘vérificationd’écriture’.973 Casscom8décembre2015,n°14-18.228.974 DesprésandDargant(n954),287.975 TheFrenchterminologyis‘actesousseingprivé’.976 Article 1582 of the Civil Code 1804.977 ibid Article 1367.978 ibidArticle1367par2;Decreen°2017-1416of28September2017relatingtotheelectronicsignature,Art1;a‘qualifiedelectronicsignature’isa signaturecreatedinaccordancewiththeRegulationoftheParliamentandtheCouncilof23July2013no.910/2014.979 TheFrenchterminologyis‘huissiersdejustice’;Decreen°56-222of29February1956concerningtheapplicationoftheActof2November1945 in relation to the status of the bailiffs.980 Ordonnancen°45-2592du2novembre1945relativeaustatutdeshuissiers,Art1.

FRAN

CE


2.3.2. ExpertsInFrance, thereare two typesof experts: (i) court experts; and (ii) non-court experts,who in turn, canbe further divided into unilateral and joint experts.981 Unilateral experts are hired by one party, whilejoint experts are hired by both parties when they agree to do so and sign a contract.982 Court experts are considered as experts sensu stricto,asthespecialprovisionsoftheCPConexpertevidenceapplyonlytothem.Theyactascourtofficialsandremainindependentfromthepartiesandarerequiredtoperformtheirtaskconscientiously,objectivelyandimpartially.983 Court experts are called to deliver their opinion on the questionoffact,whichrequiresspecialistknowledge.984 Establishing the scope of the court experts’ task is within the sole discretion of the court.985 The court may order expert testimony to be delivered in the followingmanner:(i)findings(theFrenchterminologyis‘constatation’),inwhichanexpertreportstothecourtonaquestionputforwardbythecourt;986(ii)consultation,usuallydeliveredorally987 and requested insimpletechnicalmatters;988and(iii)expertise(theFrenchterminologyis‘expertise’),usuallypreparedinwriting,989 in which an expert gives his or her opinion on a question of fact relevant to the case at hand.990 The CPCestablishesadetailedprocedureonhowtocarryoutthedutyofanexpert;duringthisproceduretheparties are permitted to provide their comments.991 The court is not bound by the assertions or conclusions reached by the court expert.992 The conclusions reached by an expert in relation to a particular technical matteraretreatedasfacts,anditisforthecourttoderivelegalconclusionsfromthem.993

Courtexpertsmayonlyaddressquestionsoffactswhichtheyhavebeencommissionedtoassess,andmaynot determine a question of law.994Thecourtisnotallowedtodelegateitspowertoacourtexpert,forexamplebyorderinganexperttoassess‘theresponsibilityofaparty’995 or to construe any particular terms within patentclaims,aswellastoelaborateontheteachingoftheclaims.996 The distinction between assessing factsanddeterminingthelawmayinvolvecarefulconsiderationonthepartofthecourt.Forexample,anopinion of a court expert that indicates the use of a surgical adhesive tape before the priority date of a patent foraninventionthatdisclosedsuchatapemayservethecourtasthebasisfortheinvalidationofsaidpatent,and would be permitted as a question of fact.997Ontheotherhand,anexpertanalysisofthedocumentsseizedinthepreliminarystageoftheproceedingswiththepurposeofindicatingwhichdocuments‘couldbeusedasevidenceoftheinfringementofapatent,unfaircompetitionpracticeorviolationofatradesecret’wouldconstitutedelegationofthejudicialresponsibilitiestotheexpertandwouldthusbeprohibited,asonly the court may assess the relevance of evidence.998 The distinction between the two situations is that intheformercasethecourtonlybasesitsdecisionontheresearchprovidedbythecourtexpert,whereasinthelatter,theentiretaskofassessingtherelevanceofdocumentsiscarriedoutbythecourtexpert.Anexpertreportthatfailstocomplywiththisrequirementmaybesubjecttonullification,butthecourtsaregiven large discretion in this regard.999Whenconfrontedwithareportpotentiallycontainingdeterminationsofpointsoflaw,thecourtshouldattempttocarefullyidentifythefactualandlegalelements,andrejectthereport only if the presence of the latter is indisputable.1000

981 Courdecassation,‘Bulletind’informationn°632du15/01/2006’(CourdeCassation,15January2006)accessed23September2020. <https://www.courdecassation.fr/publications_26/bulletin_information_cour_cassation_27/bulletins_information_2006_28/n_632_2006>982 ibid.983 Article237CCP.984 ibid Article 232.985 Cassciv(1)26November1980,n°79-13.870.986 TheFrenchterminologyis‘constatation’;Article249CCP;DéirdreDwyer,TheJudicialAssessmentofExpertEvidence (1sted.,CambridgeUniversityPress2008)198.987 ibid Article 258.988 ibid Article 256.989 ibid Article 282.990 ibidArticle263;DallozAvocats,‘Fichesd’orientationExpertise(Procédurecivile)’(DallozAvocats,Septembre2018) <https://www.dalloz-avocats.fr/documentation/Document?id=DZ%2FOASIS%2F000453>accessed23September2020.991 ibid Article 263ff.992 ibid Article 246.993 Casscom4July1978,n°77-11.104.994 Article238CCP.995 CAParis13March2002,no2001/19068DesprésandDargant(n954)269.996 TGIParis(3-1)14January2009,no05/07419.997 Casscom9February1982,n°80-15.011.998 Casscom17January2018,n°15-29.114999 NicolasContisandJulieGayrard,‘Invoquerlanullitéd’unrapportd’expertisejudiciaire’[February2016]5Lasemainejuridique <https://www.lexisnexis.fr/pdf/2016/En_questions.pdf>accessed23September2020.1000 ibid.

FRAN

CE


2.3.3. Power of the court to appoint an expert unilaterallyExperts can be appointed by the court on its own volition.1001 The nomination of experts is within the discretionalpowerofajudge,whomaybeactingeitherexofficioorupontherequestoftheparties.Thecourtmayalsodecidenottohaveanexpertatall,andmayalsorejectanexpertproposedbytheparties.1002 Thecourtisfreetochooseanypersonitseesfit,1003 as well as free to decide on the number of experts.1004 Inexceptionalcases,ifthelawsoprovides,thecourtmaybeobligedtonominateanexpertinrelationtoa particular question.1005Apartymayimplytheneedtonominateanexpert,butthecourtisnotboundbysuch suggestions.1006 Even though in France there is a national list of experts established for the Court of CassationandseparatelistsforeachCourtofAppeal,thefactthatanexpertisonthelistdoesnotaffectthecourts’discretion.Thus,acourtmayalsochooseanexpertwhoisnotonarelevantlist.1007

2.4. Preliminary injunctive relief in IP casesPreliminaryinjunctivereliefsinIPcasesaregovernedbythegeneralCPRaswellasthespecificprocedureforIPdisputes.

Under thegeneral civil procedureapreliminary injunctive relief in IPdisputescanbeobtainedboth ininter partes1008 and ex parte proceedings.1009Ininter partesproceedings,thefollowingtypesofpreliminaryinjunctivereliefmaybegranted:(i)generalinjunctions,permissibleincasesofurgency;1010 (ii) conservatory injunctions,wherebya judgemayorderprotectivemeasuresormeasurestorestorethepartiestotheirprevious state;1011 and (iii) injunction-provisions,whereby a judgemay order the payment of a debt orperformance of an obligation.1012 The inter partesproceedingsareaspeedyandefficientmechanismtoenforce claimants’ rights.1013 In the first instance, proceedings before the tribunals, the power to granta preliminary injunctive relief in inter partesproceedings isvested inthepresidentofa tribunal,1014 and notwithotherjudges,duetothehigherriskresultingfromthepreliminarycharacteroftheproceedings.This is mitigated by the experience and skill of the president of the tribunal.1015Presidentsmaydelegatetheir powers to other judges1016 or refer the decision to grant such a measure to a panel of judges.1017 The decisiononsuchareferralislefttothediscretionofthepresidentofatribunal.Whenthemainproceedingsarepending,apreliminaryinjunctivereliefisgrantedeitherbyapre-trialjudge,orasinglejudgewhohearsthe main dispute.1018

A preliminary injunctive relief may also be granted ex parte.1019Measuresgrantedinex parte proceedings may take various forms and are not individually listed in the statutes. A president of a tribunal is competent todecideonsuchmatters,ifthemainproceedingshavenotbeeninitiated.1020Ifthemainproceedingsarepending,theapplicationwillbedecidedbythepresidentofthechamber,orasinglejudgewhohearsthemain dispute.1021

1001 Article232CCP.1002 ibidArticles10and232;Cassciv(2)16December2004,Bull.,II,n°529,452.1003 ibid Article 232.1004 Cassciv(2)13July2005,n°03-19.945.1005 Cassciv(1)28March2000,n°98-12.806,wherethiswasnecessaryinthecaseofadisputeconcerningdescentofachild.1006 CourdeCassation;Bulletind’informationn°632du15/01/2006.Note,however,thattheCourdeCassation‘recommends’(inanon-bindingmanner) thataparty’srequestforthenominationofanexpertberejectedonlyinspecifiedcircumstances,forexampleinrelationtoarequestinthecourse ofatrialwherethejudgebelieveshimselftobesufficientlyknowledgeable,orwherealegitimatereasoncannotbeestablished;(‘Recommandations debonnespratiquesjuridictionnelles’;15-16November2007,Courdecassation;Question2.2;<https://www.courdecassation.fr/venements_23/ colloques_4/2007_2254/recommandations_bonnes_pratiques_juridictionnelles_11103.html>accessed23September2020).1007 Articles 1 and 2 of the Loi n° 71-498 du 29 juin 1971.1008 TheFrenchterminologyis‘procédurederéféré’;Articles484ffand834ffCCP.1009 TheFrenchterminologyis‘procéduresurrequête’;Articles493ffand845ffCCP.1010 Article834CCP.1011 The French terminology is ‘référé-conservatoire’; Article 835(1) CCP; Cour de Cassation, ‘Les bonnes pratiques de l’expertise judiciaire civile’ (Cour deCassation, 2007) <https://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG/File/pdf_2007/conf_de_consensus/consensus_synthese_alain_nuee.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020.1012 TheFrenchterminologyis‘référé-provision’;Article835(2)CCP.1013 YvesStrickler,(n816),wherebystatisticsshowthatfrom2.665.664decisionsmadeincivilandcommercialcasesin2005,270.178werepreceded by inter partes proceedings.1014 Article835CCP.1015 Strickler(n816),258.1016 Article121-3CCP.1017 ibid Article 487.1018 Articles789and813CCP;CAParis,2July2014,no13/02367.1019 ibid Article 845. 1020 ibid.1021 ibid.

FRAN

CE


Inaddition to thepreliminarymeasuresof thegeneralcivilprocedurementionedabove,avast rangeofpreliminary injunctive reliefs have been introduced to prevent or prohibit infringement of patents, plantvarieties, designs, geographical indications, trade marks, and protection of producers’ copyrights indatabases.1022 The provisions establishing these measures constitute a separate regime of enforcement and specify separate grounds for granting.1023Thesemeasuresmustbefiledwithapresidentofatribunal,who has the power to grant a relief either inter partes or ex parte.1024Asregardsapplicationsfiledpendingtheproceedingsonthemerits,therulesofcompositionexplainedaboveinrelationtoinjunctionsgrantedundergeneralcivilprocedureapply.TheIP-specificpreliminaryinjunctivereliefsinclude:1025

(a) aprohibitoryorder–thismeasureenjoinsorpreventstheallegedinfringer,underpenaltyofafine, fromcarryingoutorstartingtocarryouttheallegedlyinfringingactivity;

(b) an order to lodge security – this measure ensures that the applicant will be indemnified;

(c) anordertoseizetheallegedlyinfringinggoodsortoplacetheminthecustodyofathirdparty;

(d) anorderto‘preventivelyseize’1026movableorimmovablegoodsinordertosecurerecoverabilityof damagesfromtheallegedinfringer.Inthiscase,inordertoallowthedeterminationofwhetherthe goodsinquestionareindeedinfringingtheIPright,thecourtmayorderthepartytoprovidebank, financial, accountant or commercial documents and make any other relevant informationaccessible.

Additionally,upontheapplicationoftheentitledparty,apresidentofatribunalmayalsoordera‘probativeorder’ ex parte.1027Thismeasureallowsthepartytorequestabailiff,accompaniedbyanexpertoftheparty’schoosing,toprepareadetaileddescriptionoftheinfringinggoods,withorwithoutthetakingofsamples,ortoseizethegoodsandanyrelateddocumentations.1028Theordermayalsoinvolveaseizureofthematerialsand instruments used for the production and distribution of the allegedly infringing goods.1029

ThelistofIP-specificmeasuresisdifferentinrelationtocopyrightsotherthanproducers’copyrightsondatabases.1030Inthisrespect,copyrightholderscanapplyforaprobativeorder,allowingthemtorequestabailiff,accompaniedbyanexpertoftheparty’schoosing,toprepareadetaileddescriptionoftheinfringinggoods,withorwithout the takingofsamples,or toseize thegoodsandany relateddocumentations.1032 Additionally, the IPC provides for several examples of the other specific orders applicable to copyrightinfringement,forexample,theseizureofthecopiesconstitutinganunlawfulreproductionofawork,whetheralreadymanufacturedor intheprocessofmanufacturing,theseizureofreceiptsfromanyreproduction,performanceordissemination,byanymeanswhatsoever,ofaworkofthemindcarriedoutinviolationofthecopyright,orthesuspensionofanymanufacturinginprogressfortheunlawfulreproductionofawork.1032 Measuresmayalsoinvolveaseizureofmaterialsandinstrumentsusedfortheproductionanddistributionof the allegedly infringing goods.1033Inaddition,thecopyrightholders,astheholdersofanyothertypeofIPright,mayapplyforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefinaccordancewiththegeneralrulesofprocedure.

1022 ArticlesL615-3(patents),L623-27(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-6(designs),L722-3(geographicalindications), L716-6(trademarks),L343-2(copyrightsindatabases)IPC.1023 Sirinellietal.(n908),473.1024 ibid;therulesexplainedbelowontheapplicationsfiledpendingtheproceedingsapply.Notethattheex parte proceedings in the area of patents areexceptionalandonlytakeplaceincasesofextremeurgency,whenadelaywouldcauseirreparableharmtotherightholder(SabineAgéand EddyProthière,‘PatentlitigationinFrance:overview’(2016)PracticalLawCountryQ&A5-622-0668)1025 ArticlesL615-3(patents),L623-27(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-6(designs),L722-3(geographicalindications), L716-6(trademarks),L343-2(copyrightsindatabases)IPC.1026 TheFrenchterminologyis‘saisieconservatoire’.1027 TheFrenchterminologyis‘saisie-contrefaçon’.1028 ArticlesL615-5(patents),L623-27-1(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-4(designs),L722-4(geographicalindications), L716-7(trademarks),L343-1(copyrightsindatabases),L332-1(copyrights)IPC.1029 ibid.1030 ibid Article L 332-1ff.1031 ibid.1032 ibid.1033 ibid.

FRAN

CE


2.4.1. Grounds for granting preliminary injunctive relief

(i) Preliminary injunctive relief under the general civil law procedure With regards to the general civil law procedure rules, the grounds for granting a preliminary injunctiverelief depend on the type of measure requested by the applicant. For general injunctions in inter partes proceedings,thefirstrequirementtobesatisfiedisurgency.Theassessmentofwhetheranapplicationisurgentisa‘sovereignpowerofthecourt’,andthussubjecttothecourt’sdiscretion.1034

Asaresult,theCourtofCassationwillnotrevokeapreliminaryinjunctionorderaslongassomeconsiderationhasbeengiventothequestionofurgency.Inthisrespect,thestandardofurgencyisverylow,i.e.insomecasesevenmentioningthatthereliefisgranted‘becauseofurgency’1035willgenerallybesufficient.1036 An application is urgent where the time required to issue the decision on the merits would compromise the interest of the applicant or lead to an irreversible prejudice.1037Therefore,apresidentofthecourtmusttakeinto account the amount of time that the issuance of the decision in the main proceedings would take.1038 Thefocusoftheanalysisisonthenatureofthecaseandnotonthediligenceoftheparties.Therefore,thedelayinapplyingforthereliefdoesnotautomaticallyexcludetheurgency.However,aninexplicabledelayof,forexample,eightweeksonthepartoftheapplicantwillnotbetreatedas‘compatiblewiththeurgencyinvokedby[theapplicant].’1039Furthermore,urgencymustbepresentatthemomentinwhichthepresidentof the court makes the decision whether to grant the relief.1040

Oncetheurgencyrequirementisestablishedthepresidentofthetribunalmustbesatisfiedthatthemeasure‘doesnotencounteranyseriouschallengeor[thatit]isjustifiedbytheexistenceofthedispute’.1041Thus,thestartingpointisthatthemeasureappliedformustnotencounterany‘seriouschallenge’.Thisrequirementisaimedatavoidingpreliminarytrialsonthemerits.Inotherwords,thepresidentmaynotdecideonthematter that will be decided in the main proceedings.1042Thiswillbethecase,forexample,whenacontractonwhichtheapplicationreliesisvague,andrequiresinterpretationbythepresident.1043 The serious challenge elementmayrelatetoafactualorlegalquestion,includingaquestionofapropertyrightoverathing.1044 Evenifthemeasureappliedforencountersanyseriouschallenge,themeasuremaystillbegrantedprovidedthatthemeasure is ‘justifiedbyvirtueofanexistingdispute.’1045 This is considered to be the last resort ground,whichmayberelieduponifthenatureofthedisputerequiresthecourttopreservethepositionoftheparties,oftenexactlybecausethesituationiscontentious.1046Forinstance,thiswillbethecaseinadisputeregardingthesuspensionofbuildingworks,wherecomplianceoftheworkswiththebuildinglawrequirements is the main contentious aspect in the dispute.1047Thecourtmayalsoorderaseizureofgoods,where it appears that it will preserve the rights of the parties.1048 This ground will not entail an early trial on themerits,asthecourtpreservestherightsofthepartiesratherthandecidesonthemainclaim.

Aswasmentionedabove,thesecondtypeofaninter partes relief in the civil proceedings is a conservatory injunction,whichmaybegrantedevenwherethecasepresentsaseriouslegalorfactualquestion,i.e.thecourtisconfrontedwitha‘seriouschallenge’,orwheretheapplicationisnoturgent.Aninjunctionwillbegrantedinordertoavoidanimminentdamage,ortoabateamanifestlyillicithindrance.1049 A risk of imminent damage means that the relief sought in this instance is preventive1050 and its assessment is subject to the discretion of the court.1051Grantingthemeasuremustbetheonlywaytoavoidtheimminentdamage.Forinstance,thatwillbethecasewhereacourtprohibitsthedistributionofamagazinewiththesamename

1034 Cassciv(1)21June1989,no87-18.210;DesprésandDargant(n954)692.1035 TheFrenchterminologyis‘vudel’urgence’.1036 Strickler(n816),260;Desprès(n954)692.1037 DesprésandDargant(n954)692.1038 ibid.1039 ibid.1040 ibid.1041 Article834CCP.Notethatthewordingoftheprovisionisreferredtoasa‘grammaticalcuriosity’(Strickler(n816);asisfurtherexplainedbelow, the‘seriouschallenge’constitutesan‘obstacle’,whilethe‘justificationbyvirtueoftheexistingdispute’constitutesanadditionalgroundonwhich the injunction may be granted.1042 DesprésandDargant(n954)693.1043 Strickler(n816),261.1044 DesprésandDargant(n954)694.1045 Strickler (n 816) 261.1046 ibid. 1047 DesprésandDargant(n954)696.1048 ibid.1049Article835CCP.1050 Strickler (n 816) 261.1051SergeGuinchardetal.,Procédurecivile(6ed.,Dalloz2019)330.

FRAN

CE


as that of a competitor.1052Ontheotherhand,amanifestlyillicithindrancemeansthatthereliefsoughtistoeliminate,ratherthanpreventthehindrance.1053Ahindranceisadisruptiveactoftherespondent,andcorresponding damage on the part of the applicant.1054Thehindrancemustbeillicit,thatistosay,prohibitedbylaw,customormorals.1055 An example of hindrance is the publication of an unauthorised interview or of an article describing how to create a pirate decoder.

Aninjunction-provision,thefinaltypeofaninter partesreliefwithinthegeneralcivilproceedings,maybegranted where the existence of a debt or obligation that the applicant tries to provisionally enforce is not open to a serious challenge.1056Theonlycondition in this regard is the lackofa ‘seriouschallenge’, i.e.absenceofaseriouslegalorfactualquestion;thenotionofa‘seriouschallenge’inthiscontextisexactlythesameasinrelationtogeneralinjunctions(seeabove).Inpractice,theapplicantmustonlyprovethatthe debt or obligation in question exists. The respondent may respond to the assertions of the applicant by indicatingthatthedebtofobligationmayindeedbe‘seriouslychallenged’.1057 Itwillnotsuffice,however,thatthedefendantdeniestheexistenceorenforceabilityofthedebtorobligation, i.e.thecourtmustbesatisfiedthatthereisalegitimatebasistosuchadenial.1058

In relation to the ex partemeasures, the applicantmay base his or her application either on a specialprovision,suchastheIPprovisionsdiscussedbelow,oronArticle845CPC.Underthelatterprovision,anex parte measure may be granted if the case is so urgent that the circumstances of the case do not permit the case to be dealt with in an inter partes proceedings.1059 Orders granted ex parte may be challenged in a specialprocedurecalled‘référé-rétraction’.Inthecourseofthesaidprocedure,instigatedontherequestoftherespondentagainstwhomtheinjunctionwasissued,theapplicanthastoprove,onemoretime,thatthemeasure in question should be granted under the provision he or she had invoked.

(ii) Specific procedure in IP disputesSpecial IP preliminary injunctive reliefs, applicable to patents, plant varieties, designs, geographicalindications,trademarks,andproducers’copyrightsindatabases,1060 may be granted inter partes or ex parte. Alltheseprovisionsaredraftedinanidenticalmannerandsetoutidenticalcriteria,whichdependonthetypeofmeasuredemanded.Thebasicground forgranting theprohibitoryorder, security lodgingorder,orderofseizureandorderofpreventiveseizure,bothinter partes or ex partes,isthelikelihood(imminence)of infringement.1061 The relief will only be granted where the applicant, having presented reasonablyavailableevidencesufficienttosupporthisorherclaims,indicatesthatinfringementhaslikelyemergedorits emergence is imminent.1062

Theassessmentoflikelihoodislefttothecourt,andinvolvestwosteps.1063Firstly,analysisoftheapparentvalidityof the IP right inquestion,andsecondly, the likelihood that the respondenthas infringedorwillinfringe this right.1064As to thefirststage, theapparentvaliditywillnotbecontestedunlesssufficientlyserious and precise arguments to the contrary are presented.1065 It is, therefore, generally for therespondent to deliver such arguments. Nevertheless, in relation to trademarks, for example, the courtshouldverify,on itsown initiative,whether themark inquestion is registered inrelationtothecategoryof goods distributed by the respondent.1066Astothesecondstage,theapplicantmustpresentreasonablyavailable evidence of the infringement. The infringement may be proved by any means and may be secured bymeansof aprobativeorder, i.e. throughanex parte preliminary injunctive relief.1067 For example, theexistence of the packaging of a competitor’s product with the applicant’s mark on them, or of the

1052Cassciv(2)9March1978,76-14.862.1053 Strickler (n 816) 261.1054 ibid 262.1055 ibid. 1056 Article835(2)CCP.1057 DesprésandDargant(n954)711.1058 Strickler (n 816) 265.1059 Article845CCP.1060 ArticlesL615-3(patents),L623-27(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-6(designs),L722-3(geographicalindications), L716-6(trademarks),L343-2(copyrightsindatabases)IPC.1061 ibid.1062 ibid.1063 CAParis(5-1)23October2018,n°18/04944.1064 TGIParis22February2019,n°2018/58204.1065 ibid;note,however,asecondlineofjurisprudencethatrequiresassessmentastowhethertheIPrightis‘obviously’invalid(‘Patentlitigationin France:overview’(n1026)).1066 Sirinellietal.(n908),723.1067 ArticlesL615-5(patents),L623-27-1(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-4(designs),L722-4(geographicalindications), L716-7(trademarks),L343-1(copyrightsindatabases),L332-1(copyrights)IPC.

FRAN

CE


presenceof thegoodswiththemarkonthemintheterritoriesorcountrieswheretheyarenotofficiallydistributed,would be a sufficient evidence.1068 After assessing these two elements, the court evaluatesthe proportionality of the requested preliminary relief against the risks that the parties may encounter.1069

Aswasalreadymentioned,allthemeasuresmaybegrantedex parte.Forthatpurpose,anapplicanthastosatisfy the court that the circumstances of the case require that the measure was not granted in the inter partesproceedings,inparticular,thatanydelaywouldcauseirreparabledamage.1070

Inrelationtoaprobativeorder,1071 i.e. an ex parte reliefenablingan IPrightholdertoreceiveevidenceofinfringement,anapplicantmustonlyprovethatheorsheistherightholderoranexclusivelicensee,andthe right is opposable to third parties and in force.1072Additionally,theapplicantmustprovideprima facie evidence of infringement.1073

Tosumupthegroundsforgrantingapreliminaryinjunctiverelief,therearesignificantdifferencesbetweenthereliefgrantedunderthegeneralcivilprocedurelawandunderthespecialisedIPprovisions.Thegeneralcivilproceduremakesthegrantdependentonurgencyofthecase,theexistenceofanyseriouschallengetotheclaim,orthethreattoenforcementoftheclaim.UnderthespecificIPrules,oneonlyneedstoassesstheapparentvalidityoftheIPrightinquestion,andthelikelihoodthattherespondenthasinfringedorwillinfringe this right.

2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuitAccordingtothegeneralcivilprocedure,proceedingsforapreliminaryinjunctivereliefinbothinter partes and ex parte proceedings1074 can be initiated either before or after the commencement of an action on the merits.1075 Such applications are generally made to the tribunal which is competent to deal with the main dispute.1076Anapplicantmayalsofiletheapplicationwiththetribunalthatisnotcompetenttodealwiththemaindispute,1077 but that is located within the district where the harmful event on which the application is basedemerged,ortherequestedmeasureisgoingtobeenforced.1078Ineithercase,itisthepresidentofthetribunal that grants the relief.1079

AsforaspecialIPpreliminaryinjunctiverelieffiledbeforethemainproceedings,bothinter partes and ex parteapplicationsmustbefiledwith thecourtcompetent tohear themaindispute.Asa result, the tendesignated tribunals will be exclusively competent in relation to preliminary injunctive reliefs concerning IPrightsthatfallwithintheirjurisdiction.Asarule,theclaimantmayelecttofiletheclaimwiththecourtin the district of which the defendant has his or her domicile, the infringing practice occurred or thedamage was suffered.1080Anexceptiontothisrulewasintroducedinrelationtoprobativeordersinpatents,semiconductortopographyandplantvarietyprotectiondisputes.Inthisregard,thecompetentcourtisoneof the designated tribunals within the district where the probative measures are to be carried out.1081WhiletheParistribunalhastheexclusivejurisdictioninthesedisputes,thissolutionwasconsideredappropriateinordertoavoidtheneedforpatentownersfromotherterritories,forinstanceProvence,totraveltoParisforaprobativeorder.Giventheurgencyofsuchapplications,thenecessitytotravelsuchdistanceswouldprove highly unpractical.

2.4.3. Cross-undertakingThe party that suffered damages because of the grant of a preliminary injunctive relief is entitled to be reimbursed.1082 The responsibility is based on the assumption that the party taking advantage of such a relief mustalsobeartheconsequencesincaseswhenthereliefisfoundunjustified.Sucharesponsibilityisnotbased

1068 Sirinellietal.(n908),723.1069 TGIParis22February2019,n°2018/58204.1070 ArticlesL615-3(patents),L623-27(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-6(designs),L722-3(geographicalindications), L716-6(trademarks),L343-2(copyrightsindatabases)IPC.1071 ibidArticlesL-615-5(patents),L623-27-1(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-4(designs),L722-4(geographical indications),L716-7(trademarks),L343-1(copyrightsindatabases),L332-1(copyrights)IPC.1072 ‘PatentlitigationinFrance:overview’(n1026).1073 ibid. 1074 DesprésandDargant(n954),453.1075 Articles484ffand834ffCCP;Articles493ffand845ffCCP.1076 DesprésandDargant(n954)691.1077 ibid.1078 Cassciv(2)10July1991,no90-11.815.1079 Article834CCP.1080 ibid Articles 42 and 46.1081ArticlesR615-2,R622-6andR623-51IPC.1082 CourdeCassation,‘AvisdeMdeGouttes,premieravocatgénéral’(CourdeCassation)<https://www.courdecassation.fr/jurisprudence_2/ assemblee_pleniere_22/gouttes_premier_389.html>accessed23September2020.

FRAN

CE


on fault.1083Therationalebehindthisprovisionis,aboveall,toprotectthepartyagainstwhichthereliefwasgrantedfromtheeffectsofinsolvencyoftheapplicant,asinsuchasituationnodamagescouldbeclaimed.1084

Inordertosecurethedefendant’spotentialclaimsfordamages,priortograntingapreliminaryinjunctiverelief,thecourthasthediscretiontomaketheenforcementofapreliminaryinjunctivereliefdependentonthelodgingofasecurityunderthegeneralprinciplesetoutintheCPC1085orunderthespecificprovisionsapplicable to patents, plant varieties, designs, geographical indications, trademarks, and copyrights indatabases.1086ThespecialIPprovisions,eachdraftedinthesameway,statethatthecourtcanmaketheexecutionofameasuresubjecttosecuritiesaimedatensuringthepotentialindemnificationofthedefendantiftheinfringementclaimissubsequentlyjudgedtobeunfounded,orifthemeasuresarerevoked.Itistheenforcementofthemeasurethatissuspendedsubjecttotheprovisionofsecurity.Therefore,thereliefmaybegranted,butwillnotbeenforcedbybailiffsabsentevidencethatthesecurityhasbeenprovided.

Thegroundsforgrantingsecurityarenotsetbythelaw,andremainsubjecttothediscretionofthecourt.1087 Thesecuritymaybeinanyform,forexample,thedeliveryofmovables,depositionofasumofmoney,1088 or abankguarantee.However,itmustbesufficienttocoverallrestitutionsanddamages.1089 The only statutory requirementconcerningtheamountofdamagesis‘sufficiency’,i.e.thesecuritymustbesufficienttocoverall restitutions and damages that might result from the grant of the relief.1090

2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiativeThegeneral civil procedureandspecific IP rulesapply thesameprinciple: preliminary injunctive reliefscannotberevokedbythecourtonitsownvolition;forthis,anapplicationofapartyisrequired.Measuresgranted inter partes,ingeneral,cannotberevokedbythecourtthatgrantedthem,unlesstherehasbeena change of circumstances.1091 A measure granted ex partemaybemodifiedorrevokedbythejudgethatgranted it, even if the case has been transferred to the judge ruling on themerits.1092 Additionally, onlyin relation to IP proceedings, both inter partes and ex parte measures may be revoked where the main proceedingshavenotbeenfiledwithintheprescribedperiod.1093

2.5. Security for costsInFrance,therearenoseparatearrangementsrelatingtothecostsoftheproceedings.Theeffectsofthegrant of security for costs may only be achieved within the scope of cross-undertaking described above.

2.6. Cassation in small value claimsThere isnosmallclaimsprocedure in IPdisputes inFrance.However, if thevalueof theclaimdoesnotexceedEUR5, 000, anappeal to aCourt ofAppeal against adecisionof a tribunal is notpermitted.1094 Thisthresholddoesnotapplytocassationproceedings:cassationtotheCourtofCassationisadmissibleagainstallfirstinstancejudgementsthatviolatedthelaw,regardlessofthevalueoftheclaimandofthefact that the appeal was not permitted.1095 Insuchcircumstances,cassationconstitutesde facto a leap frogappeal.Cassationmaybebasedonthefollowinggrounds:violationofsubstantiveorprocedurallaw,absenceofthelegalbasisofthechallengedjudgement,absenceofthesubstantiationofthejudgement,orcontradiction with another judgement.1096

1083 Cassciv(2)22January2004,no,01-00.580.1084 SergeGuinchardetal.,Procédurecivile:Droitinterneetdroitdel’Unioneuropéenne(32nded.,Dalloz2014)1352.1085 Article517ffCCP.Formerly,beforetheimplementationoftheDecree11December2019reformingthecivilprocedure(Décretn°2019-1333du11 décembre2019réformantlaprocédurecivile),theprovisionofsecuritywasregulatedunderArticle489CCP.Althoughthesourcespresentedin thisreportwerepublishedbeforethereform,theyapplytothenewregulation.1086 ArticlesL615-3(patents),L623-27(plantvarieties),L622-7(semi-conductortopographies),L521-6(designs),L722-3(geographicalindications), L716-6(trademarks),L343-2(copyrightsindatabases)IPC.1087 SergeGuinchardetal.(n1084).1088 ibid 1354.1089 Article517CCP.1090 ibid. 1091 Article488(2)CCP;thechangeofcircumstancewillcompriseanynewelementthatislikelytoaffecttheordergrantingtherelieforraiseobjections tothegroundsthereof(Cassciv(2)5September2019,no17-28722);thechangeofcircumstancesmayonlyrefertofactsthatoccurredafterthe ordergrantingtherelief,ratherthanevidenceestablishedaftertheorder,butreferringtofactsthattookplaceorwereknownbeforehand(Cass com6July1993,no91-15.99691-16.535);however,courtswilltreatasachangeofcircumstancesapresentationofanexpert’sreportifthereport containsfindingsthatthejudgedidnothavewhenrulingonthegrantonthefirstplace(Casscom,6July1993,no91-15.996et91-16.535).1092 Article497CCP.1093 ArticlesL615-3,L623-27,L521-6,L722-3,L716-6,L343-2IPC.1094 Article R211-3-25 CJO.1095 Article604ffCCP.1096 Service-Publique.fr,‘Contesterunedécisiondejustice:saisirlaCourdeCassation’(Service-publique,1January2020) <https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F1382>,accessed30

FRAN

CE


PART V – COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IP COURTS – THE NETHERLANDS


1.1. Structure of the judicial system and the IP courtTheNetherlandsdoesnothaveasinglespecialisedIPcourt.Therefore,atfirstinstanceIPdisputesareheard bythedistrictcourts,whichareorganisedinseveraltypesofdivisions:administrative,criminal,family and juvenile, civil and sub-district.1097 IP cases are generally handled by the civil divisions ofthe district courts.1098ThedistrictcourtofTheHague (HDC)hasaspecialised IPchamber1099 with the exclusive jurisdictionat first instanceover anumberof IPmatters.1100 The chamber is also known as the‘patentschamber’.1101Moreover,theJudiciaryOrganisationActalsoenvisagestheestablishmentofa plant breeders’ rights chamberwithin theHDC.1102 Claims concerning IP rights that are not coveredbytheexclusivejurisdictionoftheHDCcanbeheardatanyofthe11districtcourts.Thesecourtsareorganisedgeographicallyandhearcases inaccordancewiththeir territorial jurisdiction.ProvidedthattheclaimdoesnotexceedEUR25,000,IPcasescanalsobeheardatasub-districtsector1103 of the district courts.1104Small IPclaimssubject to theexclusive jurisdictionof theHDCwillusuallybedecidedbyaspecialisedIPjudgesittinginthesub-districtsectoroftheHDC.

Appeals from decisions of the district courts are brought before one of the four courts of appeal1105 in accordance with the rules of the territorial jurisdiction.1106While therearenospecialised IPchambers inmostcourtsofappeal,theinformalspecialisationisachievedbyassigningIPcasestoseveralspecialisedappellate judges.1107TheCourtofAppeal inTheHague,whichdealswithappeals fromtheHDCandtheRotterdamdistrictcourt,hasaspecialisedIPchamber,aswellasaspecialisedIPprocedureavailableforlitigants.1108

Adecision of aCourt of Appealmay be challengedbefore theDutchSupremeCourt,which does nothaveanIPchamber.1109SimilartothepracticeattheCJEU,theSupremeCourthasAdvocatesGeneral,whosemaintaskistoprovidethemembersoftheSupremeCourtwithindependentadvice,alsoknownas‘advisoryopinion’.1110SomeoftheAdvocatesGeneralsandsomeofthejudgesassignedtoIPcasesgenerallyhavearobustIPexperience.1111

1097 Rechtspraak,‘Districtcourts’(Rechtspraak.nl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/Judicial-system-and-legislation/Pages/District-courts. aspx>accessed23September2020.1098 Rechtspraak,‘OrganisatierechtbankDenHaag’(Rechtspraak.nl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/ Rechtbanken/Rechtbank-Den-Haag/Over-de-rechtbank/Organisatie/Paginas/default.aspx>accessed23September2020.1099 ‘TrademarklitigationintheNetherlands:overview’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumberW-010-5573.1100 ThelegalbasisforeachIPrightisspecifiedintherespectivesubstantivelawprovisionandisexplainedindetailinSection2.2.1101 Rechtspraak,‘MarijeKnijff’(Rechtspraak2010)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Rechtspraak-in-Nederland/Rechters/ Bijzondere-Rechters/Paginas/Marije-Knijff.aspx>accessed23September2020.1102 Article55aof theJudiciaryOrganisationAct1827 (‘Wetopde rechterlijkeorganisatie’),Rechtspraak ‘Vorhandelingvanzakenper team’, see https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/Rechtbank-Den-Haag/Regels-en-procedures/Paginas/ Behandeling-van-zaken-per-team.aspx>,accessed23September2020.1103 TheDutchterminologyis‘Kantonrechter’.1104 Fordetailedinformationonthissee2.4.6.SeemoreatRechtspraak,‘Onderwerpenkantonrechter (civiel recht)’ (Rechtspraaknl) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Rechtsgebieden/Civiel-recht/Kantonrechter/Onderwerpen /Paginas/default.aspx#c4a23b56c7cf457f88 f671b4c4a1edce>accessed23September2020.1105 TheHague,Amsterdam,Arnhem-Leeuwardenor’s-Hertogenbosch(Rechtspraak,‘Gerechtshoven’(Rechtspraak.nl) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven>accessed23September2020).1106 Article60(1)oftheJudiciaryOrganisationAct1827,(‘Wetopderechterlijkeorganisatie’);Rechtspraak,‘Gerechtshoven’(n1105).1107 ‘PatentlitigationintheNetherlands:overview’(PracticalLaw)NoteNumber7-621-9211.1108 GerechtshofDenHaag,‘Intellectueleeigendomszaken’<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Gerechtshoven/ Gerechtshof-Den-Haag/Over-het-gerechtshof/Organisatie/Paginas/Intellectuele-eigendomszaken.aspx>,accessed23September2020.1109 Article 79(1) of the Judiciary Organisation Act 1827.1110 ibid Article 113(2).1111 Rechtspraak,‘AbouttheSupremeCourt’(Rechtspraak.nl)accessed23September2020. <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad-der-Nederlanden/Supreme-court-of-the-Netherlands>

NET

HER

LANDS


1.2. Criteria for selection of judgesTherearenospecificselectioncriteriawithrespect to IPexperienceorscientificbackgroundfor judgeshandlingIPcases.Thus,thegeneralrequirementsforajudgealsoapplytojudgeshearingIPcases.TheCouncilfortheJudiciary,whichformspartofthejudiciary,butdoesnotadjudicatecasesitself,1112 is involved in the recruitment and training of judges.1113 The appointment of judges is made by the Crown under the aegisoftheMinisterfortheSecurityandJustice.1114

Generally,therequirementsforajudgeincludeDutchnationality,1115auniversitydegreewith‘civileffect’,1116 legalworkingexperienceofmorethanfiveyearsafterobtainingadegreewithcivileffect1117 and experience inwritinglegaldocuments,casemanagementandrepresentationofpartiesinlegalproceedings.1118 That said,mostjudgeswhohearIPcasesaretypicallyproficientinIPlaw.1119Inaddition,someofthejudgesintheIPchamberoftheHDCwouldhaveascientificbackground.1120IntheNetherlands,compulsorytrainingofjudgesappliesonlytocandidatesfortheofficeandiscarriedoutwithintheframeworkoftheinitialtrainingprogrammes,organisedbytheTrainingandStudyCentrefortheJudiciary,theNetherlandsCouncilfortheJudiciary and the courts.1121

1.3. Location of the IP court and number of judgesThe11district courts thathave jurisdictionover IPdisputeshave theirprincipalseats1122 inTheHague,Amsterdam, Gelderland, Limburg, Midden-Nederland, Noord-Holland, Noord-Nederland, Oost-Brabant,Overijssel,Rotterdam,andZeeland-West-Brabant.1123Eachdistrictcourthasanumberofadditionalvenues,alsocalled‘subsidiaryseats’,1124 which are explicitly listed in the Annex to the Judiciary Organisation Act.1125 Forexample,thesubsidiaryseatsoftheHDCarelocatedinLeidenandGauda.1126 Judges may perform in the subsidiary seats all activities which they are competent to perform in their principal seat of the district court.1127Thesamerulesregardingsubsidiaryseatsarealsoapplicabletothesub-districtsector,i.e.acasecan be handled at a sub-district sector at a subsidiary seat.1128 Inpractice,thecourtsoffirstinstanceofAmsterdamandTheHaguehaveacquiredthemostIPexperience.1129 This is due to the fact that the visual andwrittenmediasectorsaremainlybased in theAmsterdamdistrict,whileTheHaguehasdevelopedanextensiveIPexpertiseduetobeingexclusivelycompetent inpatentandinEUtrademarkanddesigncases.1130Asforthenumberofjudges,thespecialisedIPchamberoftheHDCconsistsoftenjudges.1131

1112 Rechtspraak, ‘TheCouncilfortheJudiciary’(Rechtspraak.nl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/English/The-Council-for-the-Judiciary#c9058a55- 5cea-4ae7-ab46-8bf49767aa827268c952-b3a7-439c-9c95-c1a2dd66677a4>accessed23September2020.1113 Article 91(1)(f) of the Judiciary Organisation Act 1827.1114 EuropeanCommission,‘Legalprofessions–Netherlands’,(Europeane-justice,7October,2016) <https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_legal_professions-29-nl-en.do?member=1#n02>accessed23September2020.1115 AsecondnationalityinadditiontotheDutchnationalityisnotanobstacle.1116 TheDutchterminologyis‘civieleffect’.Adegreewithcivileffectisawardedtothosewhohavetakenacertainnumberofuniversitycoursesin Dutchlawaspartofthelawdegree.Inordertogainaccesstothelegalprofessionorthejudiciaryallcandidatesmustpossessadegreewithcivil effect(SeemoreatNederlandseOrdevanAdvocaten,‘RechtenstudieinNederland’(Advocatenordenl) <https://www.advocatenorde.nl/starten-als-advocaat/rechtenstudie-in-nederland>accessed23September2020).1117 Note that two tofiveyearsmaybesufficient for certain judicial posts.TheDutch terminology is ‘Rechter inopleiding (beperktewerkervaring)’ or ‘RIO’. See more at Werkenbijderechtspraaknl, ‘Selectieprocedure Rechter in opleiding (beperkte werkervaring)’ (Werkenbijderechtspraaknl) <https://www.werkenbijderechtspraak.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/19.04.19-RVR-Selectieprocedure_beperkt_4-alttext.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020.1118 Werkenbijderechtspraaknl,(n1117).1119 MatthewBultman,‘PatentLitigationintheNetherlands:WhatYouNeedtoKnow’(LAW360,20August2018) <https://www.law360.com/articles/1074513/patent-litigation-in-the-netherlands-what-you-need-to-know>accessed23September2020.1120 Rechtspraak,‘JudiciarySystemintheNetherlands’(Rechtspraak2010) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/The-Judiciary-System-in-the-Netherlands.pdf>accessed23September2020.1121 Rechtspraak,‘JudicialreformintheNetherlands’(Rechtspraaknl,2015) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/judicial-reform-2015-compleet-alttekst.pdf>accessed23September2020.1122 Article 41(1) of the Judicial Organisation Act 1827.1123 Rechtspraak,‘Rechtbanken’(Rechtspraak.nl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/organisatie/rechtbanken>accessed23 September 2020.1124 E-justiceEuropaeu,‘Organisationofjustice–judicialsystems’(E-justiceeuropaeu,7March2016) <https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_judicial_systems_in_member_states-16-nl-en.do?member=1>accessed23September2020.1125 Article41(2)oftheJudicialOrganisationAct1827.ForamapofallcourtlocationsseeRechspaak,‘Reformofthejudicialmap’(Rechtspraak.nl, 1April2013)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reform-of-the-Judicial-map-2013.pdf>accessed23September2020.1126 Rechtspraak,‘Reformofthejudicialmap’(Rechtspraak.nl,1April2013) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reform-of-the-Judicial-map-2013.pdf>accessed23September2020.1127 Article 41(5) of the Judicial Organisation Act 1827.1128 ibid Article 47(2).1129 ‘PatentlitigationintheNetherlands:overview’(n1109).1130 ibid.1131 Rechtspraak,‘IntellectueleEigendom’(Rechtspraak.nl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/ Rechtbank-Den-Haag/Over-de-rechtbank/Rechtsgebieden-en-teams/Paginas/Intellectuele-Eigendom.aspx>accessed23September2020.

NET

HER

LANDS


ThefourcourtsofappealarelocatedinTheHague,Amsterdam,Arnhem-Leeuwardenand’s-Hertogenbosch.AsofNovember2017, thecourtsofappealemployed110 judges,someofwhomhave IPexperience.1132 Finally,theDutchSupremeCourtissituatedinTheHagueandcurrentlycomprises36judges.1133 The Court’s civilchamberthatdealswithIPcaseshas11judges.1134 Although there are no further formal divisions within thecivilchamber,thesamejudgesareusuallyallocatedtoparticulartypesofdisputes,forinstance,JudgesE.J.Numann,G.Snijders,andM.V.PolakusuallydealwithIPdisputes.1135

II. Rules of procedureInIPdisputes,thecourtsapplythegeneralrulesofproceduresetoutintheDutchCodeofCivilProcedure(DCCP). Some procedural provisionsmay also be found in the IP statutes or international treaties, forexampletheDutchPatentsAct1995,theDutchCopyrightAct1912,theSeedsandPlantingMaterialsAct2005,andtheBeneluxConventionofIntellectualProperty2006.Furthermore,theHDChasasetofspecialrulesapplicableinIPdisputes:

(i) Regime for accelerated merits proceedings in patent cases1136 - most district court cases concerningpatentsarebroughtunderthisregime;1137

(ii) Regimeforanoralhearingafterstatementofdefence;1138

(iii) InstructionsforthefilingofexhibitsinIPcases;1139

(iv) GuidelinesconcerningindicationofcostsinIPcases;1140

(v) Regime for ex parte measures.1141

2.1. Composition of the court in IP casesIntheNetherlands,first instanceproceedingsareusuallyheardbyasingle judge.1142 A single judge also handles cases at the sub-district sector of the district courts.1143However,incomplexcasesasinglejudgemay transfer the case to a panel of three.1144UnlikeotherIPcasesatfirstinstance,apanelofthreejudgeshearspatentdisputesinthespecialisedIPchamberoftheHDC.1145Whenacaseisheardinapanelofthree,a deputy judge may also sit on the panel.1146Adeputyjudgecanalsoassistasinglejudge,providedthatheor she is a trained or retired judge.1147 The deputy judge may not be a practicing lawyer or patent attorney. Inpractice,heorshewouldtypicallyberetired,workattheDutchPatentOffice,actasalegalassistanttoanAdvocateGeneralortheSupremeCourtorbeengagedinacademicactivities.IntheNetherlands,thereisnojuryinIPdisputes.1148

1132 NotethatthenumberisaccurateasofNovember2017;JosPuts,‘FundingoftheDutchJudiciaryPerformanceBasedBudgeting-Rechtspraak’ (Riga, November 2017) <http://rm.coe.int/presentation-funding-of-the-dutch-judiciary-performance-based-budgetin/168076d495> accessed 23 September 2020.1133 Rechtspraak,‘Raad’(Rechtspraak.nl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Hoge-Raad-der-Nederlanden/Over-de- Hoge-Raad/Raad>accessed23September2020.1134 ibid.1135 HR,3.11.2017(ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807);19.07.2019(ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1237);5.04.2018(ECLI:NL:HR:2019:503);15.04.2016,(ECLI:NL:HR:2016:666).1136 Rechtspraak, ‘Regelingen Bij Octrooizaken - Herziening Versnelde Bodemprocedure in Octrooizaken’ (Rechtspraaknl, 2010) <https://www. rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Reglement-versneld-regime-in-octrooizaken-VRO-reglement.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020, wherebyalltimelinesarepre-determinedwiththeaimtoissuingadecisionwithinoneyear.Proceedingsareinitiatedbyadetailedwritofsummons includingastatementofclaim,facts,andlegalgroundstogetherwithallexhibitsmentionedtherein.Thedefendanthastorespondwithhisorher statementofdefencecomprisingrelevantfacts,groundsandalsoincludingallexhibitsmentionedtherein.Ifanypartyactscontrarytothese preciserules,thecasemayberemovedfromtheacceleratedmeritsproceedingsdocketandcontinuedasanordinarycaseintheslowerdocket.1137 MatthewBultman(n1119).1138 Rechtspraak,‘Regelingpleidooinaantwoord’(Reachspaaknl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/ Rechtbank-Den-Haag/Over-de-rechtbank/Rechtsgebieden-en-teams/Paginas/Regeling-pleidooi-na-antwoord.aspx>accessed23September2020.1139 Rechtspraak,‘InstructiesvoorhetindienenvanstukkeninIE-zaken’(Rechtspraak.nl,1July2014)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/ SiteCollectionDocuments/Instructie-indienen-stukken-in-IE-zaken.pdf>accessed23September2020.1140 Rechtspraak,‘IndicatietarieveninIE-zaken’(Rechtspraaknl,1April2017)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/ indicatietarieven-in-ie-zaken-rechtbanken-04-2017.pdf>accessed23September2020.1141 Rechtspraak, ‘Reglement maatregelen in de zin van de artikelen 1019b-d Rv en 1019e Rv’ (Rechtspraak.nl) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/ SiteCollectionDocuments/Reglement-maatregelen-in-de-zin-van-de-artikelen-1019b-d-Rv-en-1019e-Rv.pdf>accessed23September2020.1142 Article15(1)DCCP.1143 Article47(1)oftheJudicialOrganisationAct1827.Note,exceptionstothisareagriculturalcases,whichrequireapanelofthree(Article48(3)of the Judicial Organisation Act 1827).1144 Article15(2)DCCP.1145 MatthewBultman,(n1119).1146 Article 8 of the Judicial Organisation Act 1827.1147 ENCJ, ’ResponsequestionnaireprojectgroupTimelinessRaadvoorde rechtspraak (TheNetherlands)’<https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/ pdf/workinggroups/Timeliness/response_questionnaire_timeliness_netherlands.pdf>accessed23September2020.1148 MatthewBultman(n1119).

NET

HER

LANDS


Asinglejudgeatfirst1149 and appeal level1150decidesonapreliminaryinjunctiverelief,1151 both ex parte and inter partes. Appellate proceedings are decided by a panel of three appellate judges.1152Atthecassationinstance,inprincipleIPcasesareheardbyapaneloffive,inwhichoneofthefivejudgesactsasachairperson.1153

2.2. Jurisdiction in IP casesAswasmentionedabove, jurisdictionover IPcasesatfirst instance isallocatedbetweenthe11districtcourts.Withinthesecourts, the IPchamberof theHDChasanexclusive jurisdictionoverpatents,1154EUtrademarks,1155EUdesigns,1156breeders’rights,1157 compensation schemes regarding neighbouring rights suchasrightsofperformers,producersofphonogramsandbroadcastingorganisations,1158 private copying compensation,1159 topographies1160andchallengestothedecisionsoftheDutchPatentOffice.1161Inrelationtopatentdisputes,theexclusivejurisdictionoftheHDCalsocoverscasesrelatingtocompulsorypatentlicences.1162Disputesconcerningcopyright,1163Beneluxtrademarks,1164designs,unfaircompetitionactivitiessuchas‘slavishimitation’,misleadingandcomparativeadvertising,tradenamesandtradesecrets,aswellascybercrimematters,arenotsubjecttotheexclusivejurisdictionoftheHDCandshouldthusbebroughtinanyofthe11Dutchdistrictcourts,includingtheHDC,subjecttotherulesoftheterritorialjurisdiction.1165

Thejurisdictionofthedistrictcourtsisnotdependentonthestatusoftheclaimant,butonthesubstanceoftheclaim.Asaresult,anIPownermaydefendhisorherrightsincourtregardlessofwhetherheorsheis a natural or a legal person. The law also does not make the jurisdiction of the district courts dependent onwhethertheclaimantistheauthor,orothertypeofcopyrightowner.TheCopyrightAct1912expresslystatesthatcopyrightprotectionextendsto,forexample,thesuccessorsintitle,whomayrequestavarietyof measures before court.1166

Thereisnospecialprocedurefortherecognitionoftrademarksas‘well-known’.Suchmattersaredecidedbythe11districtcourtsandtheBeneluxOfficeforIntellectualPropertyonacase-by-casebasis.1167 The district courtswilldecidethismatterinthepost-registrationproceedings,forexampleinfringementproceedings,whereastheBeneluxOfficeforIntellectualPropertyinthecourseof,forexample,oppositionproceedings.

1149 Articles254,700and1019DCCP.1150 Article 63 of the Judicial Organisation Act 1827.1151 ibidArticle 50 (1) and (2), according towhich the judge in a preliminary injunctive relief is also called a ‘provisional relief judge’ (theDutch terminologyis‘voorzieningenrechter’).1152 Article16DCCP.1153 ibidArticle17(1);seeMSDvTEVA,theDutchSupremeCourt,3November2017(ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2807),whichwasdecidedbyE.J.Numannas chairman,thefourothercassationjudgeswereG.Snijders,M.VPolak,C.E.duPerronandM.J.Kroeze.1154 Article80oftheDutchPatentAct2009.1155 Regulation(EC)207/2009asamendedbyRegulation(EU)2015/2424andRegulation(EU)2017/1001,Article123inconjunctionwithArticle3ofits DutchImplementationAct.1156 Article80(1)Regulation(EC)6/2002,inconjunctionwithArticle3ofitsDutchImplementationAct.1157 Article78oftheSeedsandPlantingMaterialsAct2005.Breeders’rightsclaimsthatdonotconcernthevalidityoftheserights(seeArticle94-101 ofRegulation(EC)2100/94inconjunctionwithArticle78oftheSeedsandPlantingMaterialsAct2005).1158 Article 15c of the Neighbouring Rights Act 1993.1159 Article16gandart81oftheDutchCopyrightAct1912.1160 Article19oftheDutchTopographiesAct1987.1161 Article81oftheDutchPatentAct1995;claimsrelatingtothegrantingofsupplementaryprotectioncertificatesandthetermextensionthereofare administrativeclaimswhicharesubjecttothejurisdictionoftheadministrativechamberoftheHDC,whichisseparatefromitscivilIPchamber. NotethattheHDCmayappointdeputyjudgesorjudgesfromothersectionsorteamsinamultiplechambercase.(SeeRechspraak,‘IntellectueleEigendom’ (Rechtspraak.nl) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Organisatie/Rechtbanken/Rechtbank-Den-Haag/Over-de-rechtbank/ Rechtsgebieden-en-teams/Paginas/Intellectuele-Eigendom.aspx>accessedSepember2020).1162 Article80(c)inconjunctionwithArticle58oftheDutchPatentAct2009.Notethattheselicensesaregrantedbyaministeronthebasisof‘public interest’ considerations.1163 Note, however, that ina verynarrow form, theHDCexercises jurisdictionover certain copyright related issues, suchasdisputesconcerning equitableremunerationforcertainpermittedformsofuseofcopyright,forexampleinrelationtorightsofpersonswithdisabilities(Articles15e and16goftheDutchCopyrightAct1912,).Inthisregard,noprocedurallimitationregardingtheidentityoftheclaimantisestablished.Forinstance, bothanauthorandhisorhersuccessorintitlemaysueforequitablereimbursementinthecaseofpermitteduseforthebenefitofpersonswith disabilities (Article 16i of the Copyright Act 1912).1164 PleasenotethatTheNetherlandsdoesnothavenationaltrademarksassuch.Inthissense,the‘national’trademarkistheBeneluxtrademark, whichgrantsarightforthewholeterritoryoftheBenelux,i.e.Belgium,TheNetherlandsandLuxembourg.1165 Rechtspraak,‘Rechtbanken’(Rechtspraaknl)(n1123).1166 Articles1,2and,forinstance,15i(claimsforequitableremuneration)oftheCopyrightAct1912.1167 RechtbankDenHaag,13July2016(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:8130).

NET

HER

LANDS


AdministrativedisputeswithanIPconnectionfallwithinthejurisdictionoftheadministrativedivisionsofthe district courts.1168Asaresult,appealsagainstthedecisionsoftheTaxandCustomsService,thegeneraltaxandcustomsenforcementauthority,1169 may be brought before the administrative divisions of the district courts,1170eveniftheyinvolveanIPelement.

Procedurally,twodifferentIPclaimsmaybedealtwithinthesameproceedingsprovidedtheyaresufficientlyconnected, i.e. theclaimantsanddefendantsare thesameor there isacommonfactualbackgroundorcause of action.1171Forexample,ifoneclaimfallswithintheexclusivejurisdictionoftheHDC’sspecialisedIPchamber,thenanothersufficientlyconnectedclaimmaybeheardbytheHDC’sspecialisedIPchamberaswell.Thus,thecombinationofapatentinfringement(thatfallswithintheHDC’sIPchamberexclusivejurisdiction) and a trade secret infringement claim (that is not subject to HDC’s IP chamber exclusivejurisdiction)maybeheardbytheHDC.However,ifaclaimthatisnotsubjecttotheexclusivejurisdictionisheardbyacourtotherthantheHDC,suchcourtcannothearanyclaimsubjecttotheexclusivejurisdictionof theHDC’sspecialisedIPchamberregardlessof theconnectionbetweentheclaims.ThisruleappliesalsotoEUandBeneluxrights.1172Ifacourtisnotcompetenttodecideaparticularcase,itshouldtransferthe case to the competent court.1173 For example, if a district court different to theHDC seizes a claimconcerninginfringementorrevocationofapatentorEUtrademarkordesign,thatcourtmusttransferthecasetotheHDC.Thejudgeofthecourttowhichthecaseisreferred,inthiscasetheHDC,isboundbytheorder of the referring court.1174

2.3. Evidence in IP casesIntheNetherlands,evidencemaybefurnishedbyanymeans,unlessthelawprovidesotherwise.1175Thus,asamatterofprinciple, theDutch lawdoesnot imposeany limitationsonadmissibilityof evidence,1176 leaving the assessment of admissibility to the judge.1177However,exceptionstothisgeneralprinciplewereintroducedwherethelegislatorfoundthataparticularfactrequiresaspecialformofevidence,mainlyforthe sake of certainty for third parties.1178

2.3.1. Evidence in electronic formElectronicevidencehas thesameprobativevalueasother typesofevidence,and for thatpurposemaybe used in the same manner. This derives from the principle of liberty of proof.1179Asaresult, theDutchjurisprudencehasadmittedscreenshotsasevidenceof IPrights infringement.1180TheDutchcourtsmayintroducetheirownrulesconcerningtheformofpresentingevidence.Forexample,theIPchamberoftheHDChasestablishedthat‘webpagesshouldpreferablybedigitisedbyascreenshotviaaso-calledPDFprinter(e.g.PDFcreator,CutePDForAdobeProfessional)’.1181

Furthermore,therearenospecificprovisionsregardingauthentication,whichcanbedonebyanymeansofpresentationofevidenceallowedbythelaw,andisultimatelysubjecttothediscretionofthecourt.Thereasonforthislackofspecificrulesliesintheobligationofthecourttoexplaininthejudgementthecriteriaused in assessing the evidence. The burden of proof in this respect is on the parties.1184

1168 TheDutchterminologyis‘bestuursrechter’;Article8(1)(2)GeneralAdministrativeAct1992(‘Algemenewetbestuursrecht’).1169 Rijksoverheid,‘OrganogramministerievanFinanciën’(Rijksoverheid) <https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-financien/organisatie/organogram>accessed23September2020.1170 InrelationtotaxdisputesrefertoArticle26oftheGeneralTaxAct1959(‘Algemenewetinzakerijksbelastingen’)inconjunctionwithArticles8(1)- (2)and8:2oftheGeneralAdministrativeAct1992(Algemenewetbestuursrecht);inrelationtocustomsrefertoArticle8(2)oftheGeneralCustoms Act2008(‘Algemenedouanewet’)inconjunctionwithArticle26oftheGeneralTaxAct1959andArticles8(1)-(2)oftheGeneralAdministrativeAct1992.1171 Articles217-220DCCP.1172 Articles4.6(4)and4.6(5)oftheBeneluxConventionofIntellectualProperty2006.1173 Article270(1)DCCP.1174 ibid Article 270(3).1175 ibid Article 152(1).1176 MaartenvanStekelenburg,Debeterebyteindestrijdomhetgelijk(EburonDelft2009)48.1177 Article152(2)DCCP;vanStekelenburg(n1176)46.1178 van Stekelenburg (n 1176).1179 Article152(1)DCCP.1180 RechtbankMidden-Nederland,6.03.2019(ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2019:960);13.03.2019(ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2019:1068),concerningcopyrightinfringement.1181 SpecialproceedingsrulesoftheIPChamberoftheHDC,paras2.2-3.1182 Article152(2)DCCP.1183 HR,4.06.1993(ECLI:NL:HR:1993:ZC0986);7.04.1995(ECLI:NL:HR:1995:ZC1702);29.06.2001(ECLI:NL:HR:2001:AA9560);vanStekelenburg(n1176)60.1184 ibid 64.

NET

HER

LANDS


Whiletherearenoauthenticationrequirementswithregardstoelectronicevidence,specificauthenticationrequirementsapply in relation toevidencepresented in the formofa ‘writing’,andprivatedeeds.Thus,apieceofevidenceintheformofa‘writing’mayassistinestablishing,forexample,theconclusionofacontract of lease.1185Adocumentcreatedelectronicallymaybeconsideredas‘electronicwritings’,andthuspossessthesameprobativevalueprovidedthat:(i)thedocumentremainsaccessibleforparties;(ii)theauthenticityof thedocument issufficientlyguaranteed; (iii) themomentofconclusionof thedocumentcanbe determinedwith sufficient certainty; and (iv) the identity of the parties canbe establishedwithsufficientcertainty.1186Aprivatedeedisasignedwrittendocumentwhichconstitutesatypeof‘compellingevidence’.1187 The court usually accepts its content unless proof to the contrary is presented by one of the parties.1188Aprivatedeedallowsthepartythatreliesonittoprove,subjecttoevidencetothecontrary,thatthedeclarationcontainedinthedeedisauthentic, i.e.thatitwasactuallymadebythepartythatsignedit.1189 A private deed made in an electronic form must store the contents of the deed in a manner that makes thiscontentaccessibleforfutureuse,namelyfortheperiodforwhichthedeedisintendedtoserve,andanunchanged reproduction of the contents of the deed must be possible.1190Moreover,theelectronicsignaturewith which the deed is signed must satisfy the requirements of Article 15(a) of the Civil Code.1191

2.3.2. ExpertsExpert evidence in civil proceedings may be delivered by an expert nominated by the court upon its own volitionorupontheparties’ request (‘court-appointedexperts’)1192 or by an expert commissioned by the party(‘partyexpert’).1193 The task of evaluating the evidence falls on the judge.1194Asaresult,itisalwaysforthecourttodeterminetheprobativevalueoftheexpert’sconclusions.Theseconclusionsarenotbinding,but if the court decides not to take them into account the rejection must be substantiated.1195

Expertsprovidetheiropiniononspecialist,forexampletechnical,matters.1196 Their main function is thus to provide opinions on questions of fact. They may also give an opinion on a mixed question of facts and law,1197butingeneralarenotpermittedtotakeastanceonthepoint.However,inrarecircumstancesthecourt may ask an expert to deliver his or her opinion on a question of law.1198Forexample,inajudgementof2February1990,theDutchSupremeCourtaffirmedthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealwhereanexpert’sopinionwas admitted on the question of interpretation of the statutory term ‘containment’, whichwasused in 1904 legislation.1199 The purpose of the opinion was to determine how the meaning of the term had changed through time.1200Astotheinterpretationofforeignlaw,while it isalsogenerallythetaskofthecourttodecideontheinterpretationofforeignlaw,anexpertmaybeaskedtodeliverhisorheropiniononthe matter.1201Moreover,itiscustomarythatpartiesprovidelegalopinionsinthatrespect.

PartyexpertsarecommonlyrelieduponinIPdisputes.Inparticular,partiestypicallysupporttheirstatementsof claim or defence with expert opinions from their own party experts. A party may request the court to order a hearing on which the party expert will be heard.1202Acourtmayalso,onitsownvolitionoruponaparty’sapplication,requestapartyexperttoprovidefurtheroralorwrittenexplanations.1203

1185 Articles6:227aand7:317oftheDutchCivilCode.1186 ibidArticle6:227a.1187 TheDutchterminologyis‘dwingendbewijs’.1188 Article151(1)-(2)DCCP.1189 ibid Article 157(2).1190 ibid Article 156a(1).1191 Themethodusedfortheauthenticationoftheelectronicsignaturemustbesufficientlyreliable,consideringthepurposeforwhichtheelectronic datawereused,aswellasallothercircumstancesofthesituation.1192 Article194DCCP.1193 ibid Article 200.1194 ibid Article 152(2).1195 HR,12.07.2002(ECLI:NL:HR:2002:AE1532).1196 PHR,14.12.2018,(ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:1410).1197 G. de Groot, Het deskundigenadvies in de civiele procedure, Deventer: Kluwer, 2008, available at (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2008) <https://research.vu.nl/en/publications/het-deskundigenadvies-in-de-civiele-procedure>accessed23September2020,164-165.1198 G.deGrootandN.A.Elbers,‘Inschakelenvandeskundigeninderechtspraak-Verslagvaneenonderzoeknaarknelpuntenenverbetervoorstellen’ (VrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam)<https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/2415539/Rapport.pdf>accessed23September2020,27.1199 HR,02.02.1990(ECLI:NL:HR:1990:ZC8398,NJ19910).1200 PHR,14.12.2018,(ECLI:NL:PHR:2018:1410).1201 GrootandElbers(n1198),28.1202 Article200(1and3)DCCP.1203 ibid Article 200(4).

NET

HER

LANDS


2.3.3. Power of the court to appoint an expert unilaterallyA court may appoint an expert on its own volition.1204Whilethecourtconsultsthepartiesinthisregard,1205 the parties’ opinions are not binding for the court.1206

2.4. Preliminary injunctive relief in IP casesPreliminaryinjunctivereliefmeasures,regardlessofthetype,aregenerallygrantedbya‘preliminaryreliefjudge’ of the competent court.1207DutchLawprovidesforthepossibilitytoobtainapreliminaryinjunctivereliefintheformof:1208

(i) an inter partesinjunction,intheso-called‘kort geding’proceedings;1209

(ii) seizureofinfringinggoods;1210

(iii) seizureofevidenceofinfringement;1211

(iv) ex parteinjunctioninthecaseofanIPrightinfringement.1212

The purpose of kort geding proceedings is to permit the parties to receive a provisional ruling with the same contentastheoneinthemainproceedings,wherethetimeconstraintsdonotallowwaitingfortheendofthemainproceedings.1213Theprovisionalrulingdoesnotbindthecourtrulingonthemerits,1214 and the main proceedings must be started within a period of six months.1215Inpractice,however,partiesoftenconsidertheoutcomeofkort gedingasafinalresultoflitigation.1216 Types of measures granted in the kort gedingproceedingsinclude:

(i) an injunction ordering a respondent to cease or refrain from performing certaininfringingactivities;1217

(ii) arecallofinfringingproducts; (iii) anobligationtodisclosedetailsregardingsuppliersandcustomers; (iv) anobligationtodisclosedetailsregardingnumbersandprofits;and, (v) apaymentofanadvanceondamages,butonlyinexceptionalcases.

The kort geding proceedings are instigated on the application of the claimant. The starting of this type of proceedingsisnotautomatic:theclaimantisfreetostartmainproceedingsinstead.Thedefendantisboundbytheclaimant’sapplicationinthesensethatifthestatutoryconditionsaremet,forexamplethecaseisurgent,he or she cannot demand the instigation of the main proceedings. The kort geding proceedings are short and straightforward. A hearing date is routinely granted on the basis of an elaborate draft writ including statement ofclaim,factualallegationsandreferencetoevidenceinexhibits.1218 The next step is serving the defendant withthewritalongwiththeexhibits,i.e.allevidencetosupportorsubstantiateallegationsorassertions.1219 The defendantissubsequentlyorderedtofileanyexhibitswithinoneortwoweeksbeforethehearing.Thedefendantcanalsofileawrittenstatementofdefence.Thelastphaseistheoralhearing.Thejudgewillnormallyrenderhisorherwrittendecisionintwotofourweeks.Ifthereisanimmediatethreatofinfringement,forexampleanintendedproductlaunch,thejudgemayalsorenderanoralinterimdecisiondirectlyatthehearing.Importantly,a preliminary injunctive relief may be granted by a different judge from the single judge who considers a case in the merits proceedings or the judges forming the panel that decides on the merits.

1204 ibid Article 194(1).1205 RMHermans,‘Redenenwaaromoverlegmetpartijenoverdebenoemingvandeskundigenwenselijkis’(NavigatorNL-WoltersKluwer,1November2011) <https://www.navigator.nl/document/idfa3caf705493466eb405fb28ce562a86/het-onderzoek-in-de-enqueteprocedure-serie-van-der- heijden-instituut-nr-145-322-redenen-waarom-overleg-met-partijen-over-de-benoeming-van-deskundigen-wenselijk-is?ctx=WKNL_ CSL_2490>accessed23September2020.1206 GrootandElbers(n1198),26.1207 TheDutchterminologyis‘voorzieningenrechter’;Article50and60oftheJudicialOrganisationAct1827.1208 GeorgeCumming,EnforcementofIntellectualPropertyRightsinDutch,English,andGermanCivilProcedure (WoltersKluwerLaw&Business2008),118ff.1209 Article254DCCP.1210 Articles700ffand730ffDCCP;article2.22(2)and3.18(2)oftheBeneluxConventiononIntellectualPropertyRights2006;Article70(9)oftheSeed andPlantingMaterialsAct2005;Article14(9)oftheAgriculturalQualityAct1971;Article28oftheCopyrightAct1912;Article17(2)Neighboring RightsAct1993;Article70(7)ofthePatentAct1995,orArticle843aDCCP.1211 Articles1019b,1019cand709(3)DCCP.1212 ibid Article 1019e.1213 FélicieSchneider,DieLeistungsverfügungimniederländischen,deutschenundeuropäischenZivilprozessrecht(HoheSiebeck2013)75.1214 JeroenChorusetal.,IntroductiontoDutchLaw(5ed.,WoltersKluwer2016)§7.22.1215 ‘PatentlitigationintheNetherlands:overview’(n1109);Cumming(n1208)181.1216 Jeroen Chorus et al. (n 1214).1217 Thebreachofsuchanorderwillleadtocivilpenalties(MariekevanHooijdonkandPeterVEijsvoogel,LitigationintheNetherlands:CivilProcedure, ArbitrationandAdministrativeLitigation(2ed.,WoltersKluwer2009)9.1.3).1218 Rechtspraak,‘Spoedprocedure(kort geding)civielerechter’(Rechtspraak.nl)<https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Rechtsgebieden /Civiel-recht/Civiele-rechter/procedures/Paginas/Civiel-recht-kort-geding.aspx#62bbe7af-3218-4b06-8a13-12b3897f012ef4c35da0-db5e-4baf- 8754-8058da8fdcfa11>accessed23September2020.1219 ibid.

NET

HER

LANDS


ThesecondtypeofpreliminaryinjunctivereliefisanordertoseizetheproductsthatallegedlyinfringeIPrights.1220 This type of relief will almost routinely be granted within a couple of days without undue delay.1221 Onthebasisofthisorder,abailiff(assistedbythepolice,ifnecessary)canenterthepremisesofanallegedinfringer,describethestock(numbersandproductcodes),physicallyseizeitandstoreitelsewhere.1222 The ordertoseizemustbefollowedbythefilingofaclaimcommencingtheinfringementproceedingsonthemeritswithinthetimeframesetbythecourt,whichspanstypicallyfrom6to12weeks.1223 These measures areconsidered‘conservatory’, inthesensethattheowneroftheseizedproductsisnolongerentitledtotrade in the products pending the conclusion of the infringement proceedings on the merits. The owner of theproductscantrytogetapreliminaryseizureorattachmentliftedinsummaryinjunctionproceedingspursuanttoArticle705(2)DCCP.

Anothertypeofpreliminaryreliefisaseizureofevidence,whichallowsthesecuringofevidenceofIPrightsinfringement.1224Inessence,abailiff(ifnecessary,withtheassistanceofthepolice),usuallyaccompaniedbyaforensicandtechnicalexpert,canenterthepremisesofanallegedinfringerandmakecopiesoftheavailable evidence and/or describe the processes observed.1225 The relief can also include an order for the party-to-be-seizedtocooperatebyprovidingnecessarypasswordsandlog-incodes.1226

Finally,avarietyofmeasurescanbeorderedthroughanex parteinjunction,forexampleanordertoblockproxyaddresseswherecopyrightwas infringed,1227 or toprohibit infringementsubject toadailyfine.1228 Inpatentcases,ex parte injunctionsareexceptional,which isdue to the fact that thecourtposesverystrict requirements concerning urgency.1229 The ex parte injunctions are particularly relevant in the so-called‘repeat’cases.Forexample,apharmaceuticaloriginatorcompanythatholdsapatentoveramedicalproduct,afterwinningalitigationagainstagenericcompany,inwhichthecourtheldthepatenttobevalid,andthatagenericversionofthemedicalproductinfringestheoriginator’spatent,wouldthensueanothergeneric company alleging a patent infringement and requesting the court to grant an injunction against this generic company.1230

2.4.1. Grounds for granting preliminary injunctive reliefInter partesinjunctionswillbegranted‘inallurgentcaseswhere,inviewoftheinterestsoftheparties,animmediate measure is required’.1231Onthebasisofthisprovision,thejurisprudencehasidentifiedtwogeneralrequirements:(i)urgency;and(ii)likelihoodofsuccess.1232 The question of urgency requires consideration of the interests of the parties, assessedaccording to the situation at the timeof the judgement.1233 The courtassumesthaturgencyexistsaslongassufficientlyconvincingevidenceispresented,orwheretheinfringement was continuing for a longer period of time.1234Second,theassessmentofinterestsofthepartiesnecessitatesananalysisof the likelihoodof success.Asa result, thecourtmustassess the legalbasison which the claimant relies.1235 For instance, thecourtmustdeterminewhether the IP right isvalidandinfringed.1236Thecourtwillconsider,forexample,whetherthedefendantpresentedconvincingevidencethatthereisaseriouschanceofrevocationinproceedingsonthemeritsorintheEPOoppositionproceedings.1237

Thegroundsforgrantinganorderforseizureofinfringinggoodsdependontheprovisionthattheapplicantinvokes as a legal basis.1238 Inrelationto IPrights, theprovisionsof thesubstantiveactsrequireurgency

1220 Articles700ffand730ffDCCP;Article2.22(2)and3.18(2)oftheBeneluxConventiononIntellectualPropertyRights2006;Article70(9)oftheSeed andPlantingMaterialsAct2005;Article14(9)oftheAgriculturalQualityAct1971;Article28oftheCopyrightAct1912;Article17(2)Neighbouring RightsAct1993;Article70(7)ofthePatentAct1995,orArticle843aDCCP.1221 Article20DCCP;MMeijsenandAWJongbloed,‘ConservatoirbeslaginNederland’(Rechtspraak.nl,6January2010 <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/RM-Conservatoir-beslag-in-Nederland.pdf>accessed23September2020,26ff;1222 Rechtspraak, ‘De beslagsyllabus’ (Rechtspraak.nl, August 2019) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Beslagsyllabus.pdf> accessed 23 September 2020.1223 ibid pp 18 and 60.1224 Article1019b-dDCCP.1225 ‘Debeslagsyllabus’(n1222).1226 ibid.1227 Rechtbank‘s-Gravenhage,10.05.2012,(ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2012:BW5407).1228 Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage,22.02.2008,(ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2008:BC4990).1229 DirkVisser,KroniekvandeIntellectueleEigendom(NederlandsJuristenblad2009)916-917.1230 Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage,5.10.2009(KGRK09-2584).1231 Article254DCCP.1232 HR15.04.2016,(ECLI:NL:HR:2016:666).1233 RechtbankDenHaag,16.07.2019,(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:6968),[4.2].1234 HR,23.01.1998,(ECLI:NL:HR:1998:ZC2553).1235 HR21.04.1995,(ECLI:N:HR:1995:ZC1705);15.04.2016,(ECLI:NL:HR:2016:666).1236 RechtbankDenHaag,14.11.2017,(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:13109).1237 CaseC-616/10SolvaySAvHoneywellFluorineProductsEuropeBVandOthers[2012]ECLI:EU:C:2012:445,paras49-50.1238 ‘Debeslagsyllabus’(n1222).

NET

HER

LANDS


or likelihood of success.1239 In such cases, the court assesses the interests of the parties based on thedocuments presented by the applicants. These documents must include information indicating the nature of thegoodsandtherightsinvokedbytheapplicanttojustifytheseizure.1240Uponreceivingtheorderofseizure,the party against which it was issued may request the court to have the order revoked.1241 The court will then assessthesubstantivebasisoftheapplication,forexamplewhethertherightsarevalidandinfringed.1242

Astotheordertoseizeevidenceofinfringement,apartfromsubstantiatingtheexistenceofIPrightsandinfringement thereof, an assessment of proportionality and necessity of themeasure is required.1243 Inparticular, thecourtswillassesswhether the invasivenessof themeasure requested is justified in lightoftheallegedinfringement,andwhetherthereisanylessinvasivemeasureavailable,1244 i.e. whether the seizureisindeednecessary.1245

Finally,anex parteinjunctionmaybeobtainedifanIPproprietorcandemonstrate:(i)aprima facie valid title;(ii)aprima facie(threatof)infringement;and(iii)irreparableharmshouldtheIPrightholderhavetoawait the outcome of proceedings on the merits.1246 The third condition requires assessment of the urgency oftheapplicant’srequestandtheseriousnessofthedamageheorshemightsuffer,i.e.thecasemustbesourgent, thatabsentthegrantofex parte injunction, irreparabledamagewouldoccur.1247 Inpractice, ifsufficientproofofinfringementisestablished,itisfortherespondenttoexplainwhythecaseisnoturgentand the irreparable harm will not occur.1248

2.4.2. Application for preliminary injunctive relief before submitting a lawsuit

All preliminary injunctive relief measures can be granted before submitting the main lawsuit with the court. Anapplicationmustbefollowedbythecommencementoftheinfringementproceedingsonthemerits.Inrelation to ex partemeasuresthetimeframeis6to12weeks,1249 while in relation to inter partes measures it is six months.1250Asforthecourtcompetenttodealwiththeapplicationprecedingthelawsuit,thiswilldepend on the type of measure requested. Inter partes injunctions in kort geding proceedings and ex parte injunctions in IP-relatedproceedingsaregrantedeitherbythecourtwherethedefendanthashisorherdomicileorhisorherplaceofbusiness,orwheretheinfringementoccurred.1251 This does not apply to the disputessubjecttotheexclusivejurisdictionoftheHDC,whichmustalwaysbefiledwiththesaidcourt.Theseizureofgoodsandevidentiarymeasuresaregrantedbythecourtinwhosedistrictthegoodsandevidence are located.1252

2.4.3. Cross-undertakingInprinciple,nocross-undertakingisrequiredonthepartoftheapplicantforapreliminaryinjunctiverelief.However, a similar effect may be achieved by a court’s order to provide security1253 or to compensate the respondent if the measure proves unfounded.1254 The provision of a security may be ordered in the proceedingsconcerningthegrantofseizureofgoodsandex parte injunctions.1255

Themainfactortobetakenintoaccountisthesolvencyoftheapplicant,andmorespecificallywhetherheorshewouldbeabletocompensatetherespondentifthemeasureprovesunfounded.Asaresult,thesecuritywillnotbegrantedwheretheapplicantpossessessufficientfinancialresourcestocompensatetheother party for damages suffered as the result of an injunction.1256

1239 Articles700ffand730ffDCCP;Articles2.22(2)and3.18(2)oftheBeneluxConventiononIntellectualPropertyRights2006;Article70(9)oftheSeed and PlantingMaterials Act 2005; Article 14(9) of the Agricultural Quality Act 1971; Article 28 of the Copyright Act 1912; Article 17(2) of the NeighboringRightsAct1993;Article70(7)ofthePatentAct1995,orArticle843aDCCP.1240 MMeijsenandAWJongbloed(n1221)26ff.1241 Article705DCCP.1242 RechtbankDenHaag,20.10.2016,(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:12658).1243 RechtbankOost-Brabant,23.03.2019,(ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2019:1783).1244 RechtbankOost-Brabant,23.03.2019,(ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2019:1783)[3.2.7],[5.1.].1245 ‘Debeslagsyllabus’(n1222)53.1246 Article1019eDCCP.1247 Rechtbank’s-Gravenhage22.02.2008,(ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2008:BC4990);RechtbankArnhem,12.11.2010(ECLI:NL:RBARN:2010:BO7612).1248 Rechtbank‘s-Gravenhage,10.05.2012,(ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2012:BW5407).1249 Article1019iDCCP;‘Debeslagsyllabus’(n1222)18,60.1250 ‘PatentlitigationintheNetherlands:overview’(n1109);StefanLuginbuehl,EuropeanPatentLaw:TowardsaUniformInterpretation,EdwardElgar Publshing2011,p68.1251 Articles99-102DCCP.1252 ibid Article 700.1253 ibid Article 701(1) and 1019e(2).1254 ibid Article 1019g.1255 ibid Article 701(1) and 1019e(2).1256 Rechtbank‘s-Gravenhageof7.11.2011,(ECLI:NL:RBSGR:2008:BG3868);02.06.2009(KGRK09-1374).

NET

HER

LANDS


InanIPdispute,apartyagainstwhichaseizureorder,anevidentiarymeasure,anex parteinjunction,oran inter partesinjunctionhasbeenissued,canrequestthecourttoorderthepersonwhohasappliedforsuch a measure to adequately compensate the damage caused by this measure.1257 This will be possible in particular,ifthemeasurehasbeenwronglyissued.Theprovisionthusestablishesasituationinwhicharespondent who wins the main proceedings or succeeds in getting the preliminary relief revoked can request thereimbursementfordamagessufferedasaresultoftheissuanceofthemeasureinthefirstplace.1258

2.4.4. Revocation of preliminary injunctive relief on the court’s initiativeThe court that granted a preliminary injunctive relief, either inter partes or ex parte, does not have theauthority to revoke such a relief on its own volition.

2.5. Security for costsIntheNetherlands,defendantscanraiseamotionforsecurityforcostsonlyagainstforeignclaimants.1259 The provision will not apply where it is plausible that the foreign claimant will be able to compensate for the costs without granting a security.1260 Inordertotakeadvantageof thisexception, theclaimantmustprovidespecificinformationofthepossiblewaysofenforcementavailable intheNetherlandsinrelationtotheclaimant,1261forinstance,declarethatheorshepossessessharesinDutchcompanies.1262Sufficientgrounds for the exception will not exist where the claimant only states that he or she has debtors in the Netherlands,withoutspecifyingtheirnamesandtheamountofthedebt.1263 The exception does not require aguaranteethattheclaimantwillpayfullcosts,ratheronlyadegreeofplausibilitythatheorshewillbeable to do so.1264

Another exception to the obligation of providing security is if requiring security would impede effective access to justice for the claimant.1265 In this regard, theclaimantmustpresent thecourtwithadetaileddescriptionofhisorherfinancialstatus,explainingwhytheprovisionofasecuritywillimpedehisorheraccess to justice.1266Amere reference toa ‘lossofcontroloverassets’willnotsuffice.1267 Inaddition,anumber of international treaties prevent security for costs from being imposed on the claimant, if theNetherlands and the state where such a foreign claimant is domiciled are both signatories.1268Asaresult,securityforcostscannotbeimposedonclaimantsfrom,interalia,EUMemberStates.

1257 Article1019gDCCP.1258 RechtbankDenHaag,01.06.2016,(ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2016:5773).1259 Article224DCCP.1260 ibid Article 224(2c).1261 GerechtshofAmsterdam,15.08.2018,(ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:2953);28.08.2018(ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2018:3117).1262 RechtbankAmsterdam,23.08.2017,(ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:6533).1263 RechtbankRotterdam,03.04.2019,(ECLI:NL:RBROT:2019:3181).1264 Gerechtshof’s-Hertogenbosch,06.10.2009,(ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2009:BK7393).1265 Article224(2d)DCCP.1266 HR,14.06.2019(ECLI:NL:PHR:2019:622).1267 ibid.1268 TheHagueConventiononCivilProcedure1954;TheHagueServiceConvention1965.

NET

HER

LANDS


2.6. Cassation in small value claimsIftheallegedvalueofanIPinfringementclaimisbelowEUR25,000,1269 such a case may be brought before asmallclaimschamberwithinthedistrictcourts(the‘kantonrechter’).1270 The chamber will thus deal with casesfordamagesbelowanamountofEUR25,000,butnotwithcaseswherethevalueoftheclaimcannotnormallybeevaluated,suchasaclaimforprohibitionofinfringement.ThesmallclaimschamberjurisdictionisalsoavailableforclaimsthatfallundertheexclusivejurisdictionoftheIPchamberoftheHDC.Inthesecases,a judgeof the IPchamberwillsitasa judge in thesmallclaimschamber.Anappealagainst thejudgementofthedistrictcourtisonlyavailableiftheclaimexceedsEUR1,750.1271

AnappealmustbefiledwiththeCourtofAppealinaccordancewiththerulesoftheterritorialjurisdictionwithin three months.1272ItisalsopossibletoappealincassationtotheDutchSupremeCourt.1273 The law doesnotprovideanylimitationsconcerningtheavailabilityofcassationinthesmallvalueclaims.However,where the cassation is filedagainst a judgement towhichanappealwasnot or couldnot befiled, theappealingpartymayrelyonlyonthefollowinggroundsforcassation:(a)failuretodemonstratethegroundsonwhichthejudgementororderisbased;(b)thejudgementwasnotmadepublicly;(c)incompetence;or(d) exceeding jurisdiction.1274

1269 Article79(2)inconjunctionwithArticle93(2)DCCP.Insuchcases,DutchLawallowspartiestoinitiatecivilproceedingsinpersonwithoutthe representation by a counsel.1270 ibid.1271 ibid Article 332.1272 ibid Article 339(1).1273 ibid Article 398.1274 Article 80 of the Judiciary Organisation Act 1827.

NET

HER

LANDS

FCDO Ukraine IP Court Project 2 - Queen Mary University of ...

Documents

Transcript of FCDO Ukraine IP Court Project 2 - Queen Mary University of ...