Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules 199826

In Part 63—

a

in the index to the Part—

i

in the entry for Section V, for “PATENTS COUNTY COURT” substitute “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT”; and

ii

for the entry for rule 63.19 substitute “Enterprise judges and district judges”;

b

in rule 63.1(2)—

i

for subparagraph (g) substitute—

g

‘Intellectual Property Enterprise Court’ means a specialist list established within the Chancery Division of the High Court;

ii

for subparagraph (h) substitute—

h

‘enterprise judge’ means a judge authorised by the Chancellor of the High Court to sit in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court;

iii

in subparagraph (j)—

aa

in sub-subparagraph (iv), for “40/94” substitute “207/2009”;

bb

in sub-subparagraph (v), at the end omit “and”;

cc

in sub-subparagraph (vi), at the end insert “and”; and

dd

after sub-subparagraph (vi), insert—

vii

Community plant variety rights maintained by the Community Plant Variety Right Office under Article 87 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94; and

c

in rule 63.1(3), after “allocated to the multi-track.” insert “Rule 26.3(1) applies save for the modification that the court will send the parties a notice requiring the parties to file proposed directions by the date specified in the notice. For a claim which is allocated to the multi-track by this rule, rule 26.3(1B) and rules 26.4 to 26.10 do not apply.”;

d

in rule 63.2, in paragraph (2)(b), for “a patents county court” substitute “the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court”;

e

in rule 63.3, for “and a patents county court form specialist lists” substitute “form a specialist list”;

f

in rule 63.8—

i

in paragraph (1), for “an allocation questionnaire” substitute “a directions questionnaire”; and

ii

in paragraph (2)(b), for the words in parentheses, substitute “(the parties must endeavour to agree case management directions)”;

g

in rule 63.13(b), for “a patents county court” substitute “the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court”;

h

in Section V, for the heading to that Section, substitute “INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT”;

i

in rule 63.17, for “a patents county court” substitute “the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court”;

j

after rule 63.17 insert—

63.17A

1

In proceedings in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court in which a claim is made for damages or an account of profits, the amount or value of that claim shall not exceed £500,000.

2

In determining the amount or value of a claim for the purpose of paragraph (1), a claim for—

a

interest, other than interest payable under an agreement; or

b

costs,

shall be disregarded.

3

Paragraph (1) shall not apply if the parties agree that the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court shall have jurisdiction to award damages or profits in excess of £500,000.

k

for rule 63.18 substitute—

63.18

1

Rule 30.5 applies save for the modifications—

a

a judge sitting in the County Court or the general Chancery Division may order proceedings to be transferred to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court; and

b

an application for the transfer of proceedings from the County Court or the general Chancery Division to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court may be made to a judge sitting in the County Court or the general Chancery Division respectively.

2

When considering whether to transfer proceedings to or from the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the court will have regard to the provisions of Practice Direction 30.

l

in rule 63.19—

i

for the heading to the rule, substitute “Enterprise judges and district judges”;

ii

in paragraph (1), for the words “a patents county court” to the end, substitute “the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court will be dealt with by an enterprise judge.”;

iii

after paragraph (1) insert—

1A

For the purposes of the Practice Direction 52A – Appeals: General Provisions, a decision of the enterprise judge shall be treated as a decision by a circuit judge hearing a specialist claim in the County Court.

iv

for paragraph (2) substitute—

2

Unless the court otherwise orders, the following matters will be dealt with by a district judge—

a

allocation of claims to the small claims track or multi-track in accordance with rule 63.27(3);

b

claims allocated to the small claims track; and

c

all proceedings for the enforcement of any financial element of an Intellectual Property Enterprise Court judgment.

3

For the purposes of the Practice Direction 52A – Appeals: General Provisions, a decision of a district judge shall be treated as a decision by a district judge hearing a specialist claim in the County Court. An appeal from such a decision shall be heard by an enterprise judge.

m

in rule 63.22—

i

in paragraph (2), after “the period for filing a defence” insert “where the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10”; and

ii

in paragraph (3), after “the period for filing a defence” insert “where the defendant files an acknowledgment of service under Part 10”;

n

in rule 63.23(2), for “consider an application by” substitute “permit”;

o

in rule 63.25(4), for “High Court” substitute “Patents Court or general Chancery Division”

p

in rule 63.26—

i

in paragraph (2), for “will” substitute “may”; and

ii

in paragraph (3), for “Section VII” substitute “Section IV”;

q

in rule 63.27—

i

in paragraph (1), for “a patents county court” substitute “the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court”;

ii

omit paragraph (2);

iii

in paragraph (3) after “in accordance with Part 26 (case management – preliminary stage).” insert “For that purpose the court will send the parties a directions questionnaire and require them to file completed directions questionnaires and to serve them on all other parties within 14 days”; and

iv

in paragraph (4)—

aa

for “a patents county court”, in each place it occurs, substitute “the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court”; and

bb

for “Section VII” substitute “Section IV”; and

r

in rule 63.28, for “a patents county court” substitute “the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court”;