"A New Era of IP Resolution: Examining Simplified Procedures for IP Claims"

Simplified or Fast Track Procedures for Certain Intellectual Property?Claims

A few of the Objectives

1. Lessened Backlog:

• Reduce the number of appeal cases that are still outstanding.

2. Prompt Justice:

• Provide speedier appeal decisions to ensure prompt delivery of justice.

?3. Savings on costs

• Reduce legal expenses and make the best use of available resources in the courts.

4. Resource Distribution:

• More effectively allocate court resources, concentrating on challenging cases.

5. Increased Justice Access:

• Make it easier for people and small companies to access the appeals procedure.

6. Decision-Making Consistency:

• Ensure more predictable and consistent court results.

7. Promoting Resolution:

• Encourage parties to resolve disagreements rather than file drawn-out appeals.

8. Lessening of Judicial Workload

• Reduce the workload on judges and court personnel by expediting ordinary appeals.

9. Legal Confidence:

• Give parties more assurance by hastening final judgements.

10. Modernization and Technological Integration:

• Use technology to manage cases effectively and produce less paper.

The overall goal of these goals is to increase the efficacy and efficiency of the appeals process in the legal system.

Options and methodology

?1. Examined in Priority:

• Commonly accessible for patent applications.
• Involves making a special payment in order to speed up the examination procedure.
• Applications are advanced in the examination line.
• Patents are issued more quickly than conventional applications.

2. Accelerated Assessment:

• Imposes rigorous deadlines to expedite the patent examination process.
• Applicants pledge to deliver the necessary paperwork and replies in a timely manner.
• Shortens the time needed to get a patent by accelerating the examination process.

3. The PPH (Patent Prosecution Highway)

• Applicants can use favourable examination findings from one jurisdiction to speed up the procedure in another. - Allows for accelerated examination based on results from a cooperating patent office.
• Reduces the need for repetitive labour and expedites the patent-granting procedure.

4. Summary of Trademark Cancellation Proceedings:

• Offers a quicker means of opposing registered trademarks.
• Involves less formal, simplified processes.
• Usually applied in disputes or cases of trademark infringement.

?

5. Quick-Track Legal Action:

• Hastens the settlement of IP issues.
• Shorter deadlines for court rulings, discovery, and hearings.
• Cuts down on the time and expense of traditional litigation.

?6.? Procedures for Copyright Takedown:

• Based on regulations such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the United States, online platforms adopt accelerated procedures to delete infringing information.
• ensures the prompt removal of illegal content in order to safeguard IP rights.

7. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Mediation:

• Provides a speedier and less combative means of resolving IP conflicts.
• The parties may consent to accelerated ADR processes.
• Encourages negotiated settlements and cuts down on the time and expense of litigation.

8. Proceedings for Expedited Trademark Opposition:

• Facilitates the settlement of trademark registration issues more quickly.
• Enables speedier assessments of trademark ownership and validity.

9. Specialised Fields' IP Rights:

• Due to the distinctive nature of invention in certain areas, some businesses, like pharmaceuticals, may have specialised accelerated processes for IP rights.

10. Programmes for IP Commercialization

• Initiatives to speed the commercialization of intellectual property and the transfer of technology, which may involve accelerated licencing or transfer processes for IP rights.

11. Fast-Tracking for Small Entities:

• ?Special programmes created to foster innovation among small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) and individual inventors by accelerating IP procedures.

Scope of simplified or fast track procedures (e.g., type of intellectual property right, value of the claim, remedies sought, complexity of the case)

Applicability and Eligibility Criteria:

• In the CPC, Order XXXVII, which deals with "Simplified Procedure for Recovery of Debts."
• In IPD matters, specific eligibility criteria may not be explicitly mentioned in the IPD rules, but the High Court may issue practice directions or guidelines.

Civil Procedure Code (CPC):

1.????? Section 89 - Reference to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation, conciliation, and arbitration, as an option for settlement before the commencement of a suit.

2.????? Order X - Provides for the examination of witnesses in a summary manner.

3.????? Order XII - Allows for the admission of documents and affidavits as evidence in certain cases.

4.????? Order XXXVII - Summary procedure in certain suits based on negotiable instruments.

5.????? Order V, Rule 1A: Service of summons to defendants in fast-track suits.

6.????? Order X, Rule 1A: Court may direct admissions or denials to be signed.

7.????? Order X, Rule 1B: Consequences of not signing admission or denial.

8.????? Order XI, Rule 1: Discovery and inspection.

9.????? Order XI, Rule 12: Consequence of refusal or failure to admit.

10.?? Order XV, Rule 1: Procedure on admitting claim.

11.?? Order XV, Rule 4: Set-off of cross-claims.

12.?? Order XV, Rule 5: Counterclaim.

13.?? Order XX, Rule 5: Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff.

14.?? Order XX, Rule 6: Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.

15.?? Order XX, Rule 10A: Summary procedure for the decision of the suit.

16.?? Order XXII, Rule 4: Abatement of appeals.

?Intellectual Property Dispute (IPD) Rules (India):

1. Rule 3: Application for the grant of interim relief in IP disputes.
2. Rule 10: Case management hearing.
3. Rule 11: List of admitted and denied documents.
4. Rule 12: Statements of witnesses on affidavit.
5. Rule 13: Inspection of documents.
6. Rule 14: Expert evidence.
7. Rule 15: Affidavit evidence.
8. Rule 16: Hearing of the suit.
9. Rule 17: Preliminary issues.
10. Rule 18: Summary judgment.
11. Rule 19: Settlement or compromise.
12. Rule 20: Amendments to pleadings.

?Features of simplified or small-track proceedings (e.g., shorter time limits, simplified rules for representation, pleading, hearings?and?discovery)

Features of simplified or small-track proceedings (e.g., shorter time limits, simplified rules for representation, pleading, hearings?and?discovery)

1. lower Time limitations: One of the main aspects is the enforcement of lower time limitations for the filing of papers, answering motions, and arranging hearings at various stages of the legal process. Faster case resolution is made possible by this.
2. Simplified regulations: Compared to ordinary processes, simplified proceedings may have less formal and complicated regulations. This simplification may involve loose formatting, procedural, and document filing standards.
3. Limited Discovery: In simplified processes, the process of acquiring evidence, known as discovery, is frequently restricted. This might entail limiting the number of depositions, interrogatories, or document requests in order to speed up and lower the expense of discovery.
4. Simplified Pleading: The criteria for pleading may be streamlined, enabling quicker and less thorough complaints and responses. As a result, creating legal papers takes less time and effort.
5. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Simplified procedures may encourage or mandate that parties participate in mediation or arbitration. ADR procedures are frequently quicker and less expensive than a traditional trial.
6. Informal Hearings: In simplified processes, hearings could be held in a less formal setting with less procedural requirements and a more laid-back environment. This might speed up the case's outcome.
7. Limited Pretrial Motions: By limiting the number and complexity of pretrial motions, the necessity for protracted legal debates prior to trial may be diminished.
8. Simplified counsel: In simplified processes, parties may be more readily permitted to represent themselves (pro se), eliminating the need for expensive professional counsel.
9. Accelerated Trial Schedule: Trial dates for cases under streamlined processes are sometimes set earlier, resulting in a quicker conclusion.
10. Limited Appellate Options: To avoid further postponing cases, there may be few chances for appeals under streamlined processes.

11.??? Cost-Effective: Simplified procedures are typically designed to be more cost-effective for all participants since they need less time and money overall.

12.?? Focus on Core concerns: Simplified processes are intended to reduce superfluous complications and legal bickering and instead focus on the case's fundamental concerns.

13.?? Case Management: Judges may take a more active role in case management, assisting in settlement negotiations and leading the parties through the process.

14.?? Limited Remedies: Simplified procedures may include restrictions on the sorts of damages or remedies that may be demanded, narrowing the scope of the action.

15.?? Limited Jury Involvement: If necessary, streamlined procedures may restrict the employment of juries and depend instead on bench trials (judge-only trials) to move the case through quickly.

These qualities aim to strike a reasonable balance between the parties' rights to a just and fair settlement of their legal issues and the requirement for speed and expediency. Cases without complicated legal or factual concerns benefit most from simplified processes..

In other countries, the rules and procedures for simplified or small-track proceedings may be outlined in the civil procedure code or other relevant legislation.

Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (IPD Rules)

IPD Rules will regulate the matters listed before IPD and prescribe the practice and procedure for the exercise of the original and appellate jurisdiction of IP Division and for other miscellaneous petitions arising out of specific IP statutes. Some of the salient features of the proposed Rules are:

1.?Registered Patent agents or Trademark agents and also any professional having knowledge of the said subject matter of the dispute shall have a right of audience before the IPD, to assist the Court along with the counsels/legal practitioners representing the parties.

2.?For cases other than patent cases, the IPD can pass summary judgment, without the requirement of filing a specific application seeking summary judgment on principles akin to those contained in Order XIIIA, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 22.

3.?In case of multiple proceedings relating to the same or related IPR, irrespective of whether the said proceedings are between the same parties or not, the IPD shall have the power and the discretion to direct consolidation of proceedings, hearings, and also to direct consolidated recording of evidence/ common trial and consolidated adjudication.

4.?In all matters filed before the IPD, advance copy shall be served at the address for service as also through email at least 48 hours in advance, upon the Respondents including the counsels/agents, who may have represented the Respondents before the IPO, or trial court, or authority as the case may be.

5.?Evidence is allowed to be recorded through video conference by Local Commissioner and/or videography and transcription technology or by use of any other technology. In case there are expert witnesses from both the sides with conflicting opinions, “Hot Tubbing” as per Rule 6 of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018 is also allowed.

6.?Most significantly, IPD Rules introduce “Litigation Hold Notice” (LHN) whereby prior to initiation of proceedings, a party may issue LHN to other parties to preserve for a year, all documentary and electronic material relating to the subject matter of the proceedings, which can be used as an evidence.

Interim relief in practice and impact on IP litigation in India. The Supreme Court has expressly laid down guidelines in [Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249]and warned against the grant of ex parte injunction, the practice continues. Even Order 39 Rule 3-A CPC16 specifically states that the Court “shall ‘make an endeavour’ to dispose of the ex parte application within 30 days from the date on which it is granted”, the same is usually not possible.[1]

?

?

?

?

?

[1] https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/08/23/importance-interim-relief-in-intellectual-property-litigation-and-impact-the-commercial-courts-act/

?