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”;