• Our People
  • Global Presence
  • Regions
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Americas
  • Offices
    • Canada
      • Ottawa
      • Toronto
    • China
      • Beijing
      • Hong Kong
    • Luxembourg
    • Malaysia
    • Singapore
    • UK
      • Aberdeen
      • Birmingham
      • Cambridge
      • Edinburgh
      • Glasgow
      • London
      • Manchester
      • Oxford
  • Client liaison
    • Japan
    • Korea
  • Expertise
  • Services
    • Patents
    • Brands & Trade Marks
    • Designs
    • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial IP & Contracts
    • Due Diligence
    • Freedom to Operate
    • EPO Patent Oppositions
    • European Patent Validations
    • Anti-counterfeiting
    • Open Source & Third Party Code
  • Sectors
    • Digital Transformation
      • 3D Printing
      • Artificial Intelligence
      • Blockchain
      • Data & Connectivity
      • Extended Reality
      • Industry 4.0
    • Energy & Environment
    • Life Sciences
    • Agritech
    • Medical Technologies
    • Chemistry
    • Transport
    • Entertainment & Creative Industries
    • Food & Drink
    • Fashion & Retail
    • Universities & Research Bodies
    • Start-ups & Spin-outs
      • Creating value for start-ups
      • The IP driven start-up
    • Financial Services
  • About Us
    • Working with us
    • Awards
    • Corporate & Social Responsibility
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Careers
  • Insights
    • Articles
    • News
    • Events
    • Resources
    • Unified Patent Court hub
    • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
    • M&C Reacts
  • Contact Us
Marks & Clerk logo
Marks & Clerk logo
Contact Us
Language
English
Our People
Global Presence
Regions
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Americas
Offices
  • Canada
    • Ottawa
    • Toronto
  • China
    • Beijing
    • Hong Kong
  • Luxembourg
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • UK
    • Aberdeen
    • Birmingham
    • Cambridge
    • Edinburgh
    • Glasgow
    • London
    • Manchester
    • Oxford
Client liaison
  • Japan
  • Korea
Expertise
Services
  • Patents
  • Brands & Trade Marks
  • Designs
  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial IP & Contracts
  • Due Diligence
  • Freedom to Operate
  • EPO Patent Oppositions
  • European Patent Validations
  • Anti-counterfeiting
  • Open Source & Third Party Code
Sectors
  • Digital Transformation
    • 3D Printing
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Blockchain
    • Data & Connectivity
    • Extended Reality
    • Industry 4.0
  • Energy & Environment
  • Life Sciences
  • Agritech
  • Medical Technologies
  • Chemistry
  • Transport
  • Entertainment & Creative Industries
  • Food & Drink
  • Fashion & Retail
  • Universities & Research Bodies
  • Start-ups & Spin-outs
    • Creating value for start-ups
    • The IP driven start-up
  • Financial Services
About Us
  • Working with us
  • Awards
  • Corporate & Social Responsibility
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
Insights
  • Articles
  • News
  • Events
  • Resources
  • Unified Patent Court hub
  • Beyond Brexit: European trade mark hub
  • M&C Reacts

Cook v Boston – practicalities relating to the Shorter Trial Scheme and costs budgeting

Photo: Gavel and Justice Scale
11 August 2022
Nicholas Fischer
Print
Share

This short CMC judgment ([2022] EWHC 2060 (Pat)) in proceedings between Cook and Boston Scientific contains a few practical points on the Shorter Trial Scheme (STS) and other case management issues.

By way of background, the STS was set up with the purpose of providing parties with an avenue to achieve earlier, shorter trials for reasonably sized litigation at a proportionate cost. Cases are managed by docketed judges with the aim of reaching trial within 10 months from the date of issue of the claim, and cases are streamlined with restrictions on disclosure, the length of pleadings and the degree of expert evidence. A significant advantage of the STS over the usual multi-track procedure is that the time-consuming costs budgeting requirements under the relevant civil procedural rules do not apply.

In this case, Cook had commenced a revocation action against Boston’s patent to an endoscopic clip under the STS, because it initially involved only one patent and one piece of prior art. There was the prospect of a second patent potentially entering the proceedings, having already been asserted by Boston in the Netherlands, but at an earlier trial listing hearing Mellor J was happy to allow the case to continue in the STS provided that patent did not enter the case.

By the time of this CMC, however, the second patent was in issue and with the case now involving several pieces of prior art, two experts and the likelihood of experiments and fact evidence, the parties and the judge were in agreement that it needed to be transferred out of the STS.

The point of practical interest here is that, as the claimants were not prepared to certify that the value of the claim was over £10 million and so exempt from the cost budgeting provisions, the Judge pointed out that the default position was that the usual cost budgeting rules should apply. Parties looking to transfer claims out of the STS should therefore bear in mind that costs budgets may be required if the claim is likely to be worth less than £10 million.

The position on disclosure was a little unusual in that Cook sought an order for disclosure from Boston, the patentee, in relation to infringement – in this case for documents under Boston’s control relating to the issue of “user feedback” regarding use of Cook’s allegedly infringing products. The Judge allowed limited disclosure from Boston, provided it did not become overly expensive or interfere with the proper conduct of the preparation for trial. However, Cook’s request for samples of Boston’s products was refused. The Judge noted that, whilst the provision of samples is a relatively straightforward exercise, the consequences of such an order “could be significant” and there had to be good reason, bearing in mind the need for proportionality.

On statements of case, the Judge acknowledged the benefit of early and better particularisation of cases by way of statements of case on infringement and validity, and noted that their use is becoming increasingly common practice. In this case, Cook had also agreed to provide a claim chart mapping the prior art embodiments on to each claim of the patents, though the Judge refused Boston’s request for further particularisation by identifying the adaptations or modifications Cook contends would have been obvious for the skilled team to make to each embodiment. In his view, the benefit of early particularisation helping to narrow the issues and focus the efforts of the parties can be lost by overly onerous requests – Boston’s request was therefore not a fair step in managing the case.

Next Story
  • Shorter trials in the UK Patents Court
More insights

Latest Insights

Hermes birkin
Article
- 31 January 2023

The MetaBirkin and the very modern debate unfolding in Hermès International, et al v. Mason Rothschild

A boundary testing trade mark case continues in the US between Hermès International and Mason Rothschild and we eagerly await the outcome.  This case is likely to set a precedent about how trade mark rights can extend to, and be enforced in, the virtual space / metaverse.
Read more
Article
- 26 January 2023

New year, new scale of costs: UKIPO publishes practice note TPN 1/2023

Earlier this week, the IPO brought together updated the guidance from previous TPNs about costs in trade mark, patent and design tribunal proceedings in (TPN) 1/2023.
Read more
News
- 26 January 2023

Return to sender, address unknown

Hot off the press is the long awaited guidance from the UKIPO on service of documents in contentious proceedings upon parties who do not have a UK address for service.  
Read more
Marks & Clerk logo (white)
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Notice
  • Cookies
  • Legal Notices
  • Lexology
  • Mondaq