Spotlight on

Litigation

Having invested in building a strong IP portfolio covering the goods and services of your business, you want to be able to enforce those rights against an infringer, or to defend them against allegations of infringement. In fact, being able to enforce and defend your intellectual property (IP) rights is often essential to their value, management and exploitation. But, whether enforcing or defending, it is desirable to be able to do so in a cost-effective manner which is commensurate with the importance of the IP asset and your budget.

A common perception of IP disputes is that they are time consuming and costly. Sometimes prohibitively so. Many assume that such disputes will inevitably mean years of business interruption, lost resources and sunken costs while teams of lawyers and barristers battle it out. With this reputation it is little wonder that many consider disputes, and in particular litigation, to be a tool only to be used by those with deep pockets or reserved exclusively for their most valuable “blue chip” IP assets. More corrosively, a perception can develop that enforcing your IP rights is not worth the trouble, or that you cannot fight off a “troll”. But if you cannot enforce your rights what is the point of them? And if you cannot defend against yourself against allegations of infringements, how can you stand up for your business? You want to be in a position to enforce or defend the value of your innovations, and your investment in making those innovations, in order to allow your business to benefit commercially from those innovations in the future.

Facing claims of being too expensive and cumbersome, and competition from other jurisdictions, in particular Germany, changes to IP litigation in England were necessary. This was identified in the Woolf and Jackson reviews. UK civil litigation had to become more accessible, cheaper, and faster. For IP in particular, the English courts developed the IP & Enterprise Court (IPEC) from the Patents County Court. It is designed to improve access to IP litigation by providing a less costly and complex alternative to the Patents High Court, allowing the claimant to get damages and injunction more quickly and with less risk. Specifically, the reforms streamlined court procedures, limited trials to one or two days, and imposed caps on recoverable costs (£50,000) and on the damages that can be awarded (£500,000). Other changes followed, including the introduction of the Shorter Trial Scheme (STS) at the Patents Court. These changes tied in neatly with an increased emphasis in the English civil procedure rules on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). While England is a historically pre-eminent venue for IP litigation, these changes have re-emphasised the English courts as a centre for global excellence in handling IP disputes. This has been further helped in large part by a collection of IP specialist judges of world renown, a body of deeply experienced IP lawyers, and a range of trusted ADR options.

Read our Blogs

UPC Weekly - Court of Appeal decides patent is valid enough but PI request was not fast enough

UPC Weekly - Court of Appeal decides patent is valid enough but PI request was not fast enough

by Eliot Ward

UPC Weekly brings you timely, thoughtful and joined-up insight into the evolving landscape of patent litigation at the Unified Patent Court. 2026 Week 27 In UPC Weekly 2026 w5, we reported on the ...

UPC Weekly - Preliminary injunctions: ex parte, in-play and on appeal

UPC Weekly - Preliminary injunctions: ex parte, in-play and on appeal

by Matthew Naylor

UPC Weekly brings you timely, thoughtful and joined-up insight into the evolving landscape of patent litigation at the Unified Patent Court. 2026 Week 26 Quick but detailed – preliminary injunction ...

UPC Weekly - What SEP?

UPC Weekly - What SEP?

by Matthew Naylor

UPC Weekly brings you timely, thoughtful and joined-up insight into the evolving landscape of patent litigation at the Unified Patent Court. 2026 Week 25 The highest value cases at the UPC fall ...

UPC Weekly - An all-you-can-eat buffet from the Court of Appeal

UPC Weekly - An all-you-can-eat buffet from the Court of Appeal

by Matthew Naylor

UPC Weekly brings you timely, thoughtful and joined-up insight into the evolving landscape of patent litigation at the Unified Patent Court. 2026 Week 24 There’s more to the UPC than long arm ...

UPC Weekly - The long arm workflow and checklist

UPC Weekly - The long arm workflow and checklist

by Matthew Naylor

UPC Weekly brings you timely, thoughtful and joined-up insight into the evolving landscape of patent litigation at the Unified Patent Court. 2026 Week 23 As a new court, covering 18 countries, it was ...

UPC Weekly - Stroller wheels and the accepted LD test for the doctrine of equivalents

UPC Weekly - Stroller wheels and the accepted LD test for the doctrine of equivalents

by Matthew Naylor

2026 Week 22 After a brush with the doctrine of equivalents (DoE) over the last couple of weeks, we’re back with a new first instance decision where everything turned on equivalence. The technology ...

SEE ALL BLOGS

Achieving a Successful Outcome

There are a range of options for dealing with an IP disputes in England, one or more of which can be applied to leverage a commercially successful outcome.

Negotiation between the parties, including through mediation

Litigation should not be the first port of call to resolving a dispute. If the parties can discuss the situation amicably, it is possible to negotiate a successful outcome quickly and cheaply that achieves your commercial objectives. Sometimes an outside, independent mediator can help that process by providing an arm’s length forum for the parties to explore compromises. While mediation involves a semi-formal process, it still represents a route to an inexpensive resolution of the dispute.

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR), usually required by a contract or if the parties agree, should be considered before litigation. In fact, in the English civil procedure rules require the parties to consider ADR. ADR is especially attractive for handling international disputes where the parties are looking for a global solution or because they want to keep the nature of the dispute private and out of the public realm of court. There are various forms of ADR. One is mediation, as discussed above. Another is arbitration, e.g. using a body such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) or a specialist IP institution such as the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). Arbitration is a private and legally binding proceeding which does not threaten the underlying IP asset, but whose decision can be enforced in most countries through national arbitration acts. Expedited versions can be faster and cheaper. Finally, binding expert determination, available through specialist bodies including WIPO, is often an excellent option for very technical disputes – e.g. in relation to entitlement to an IP asset.

Dispute resolution venues outside of the traditional court system

Domain name disputes can be brought before an ICANN accredited arbitration group such as WIPO (for disputes concerning gTLDs) or national registry managers such as Nominet.uk (for dispute concerning ccTLDs). While there are limits to the types of actions available, e.g. claims of cybersquatting and abusive registrations or challenges based on the complainant’s existing trade marks, making use of these specialist bodies with their comparatively low costs and relatively rapid dispute processing, can often prove to be a highly efficient and cost-effective strategy.

Online platforms with IP policing systems such as Etsy, Amazon, Instagram, Ebay and YouTube provide a semi-formal forum for reporting IP infringement and counterfeit goods. These can lead to the take down the sale of infringing articles and stopping the unauthorised use of brands.

Dispute resolution venues within the traditional court system

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) provides a formal forum for applications to cancel or revoke UK patents, designs and trade marks, to challenge another party’s entitlement to such UK registered rights, and to pre-emptively oppose the grant of an UK application for such an IP right. The process of clearing away invalid rights and preventing third parties from obtaining rights which conflict with your own, can not only protect your business, but it can provide valuable leverage in commercial negotiations. Compared to a typical commercial dispute in the High Court, UKIPO procedures are generally quite flexible, responsive, fast and relatively inexpensive, with a lower cost risk.

Intellectual property infringement claims in England can be issued either in IPEC or other courts in the Intellectual Property List in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, commonly the Patents Court. As noted above, IPEC provides a streamlined and more cost-effective forum to hear lower value and less complex IP claims than the Patents Court. Complexity is determined not by the technical nature of the claim, but by the claim’s size and fact matrix, because an IPEC case must be heard within a one or two day trial. Critically, IPEC provides the full spectrum of infringement remedies, including legal capped cost awards and damages, and injunctions.

The Patents Court is the forum for all other English IP litigation. But even there the parties can take advantage of the Shorter Trial Scheme (STS). The STS was developed, like IPEC, for improved efficiency and cost. It introduces among other things, strict timelines, reduced pleadings and more limited evidence and disclosure. But it does not have the cost and damages caps of the IPEC.

In addition to managing costs, both IPEC and the Patents Court STS aim for trial within 12 months of issuing the claim.

Meet Camilla Balleny, Head of Patent Litigation

In this film, Camilla reflects on her career working with life sciences and healthcare clients across the full patent litigation lifecycle. She also explores how Mewburn combines deep technical expertise and strategic IP insight to meet the demands of a rapidly evolving patent litigation landscape and global IP complexities.

Patent Disputes three page spread 2-2
 

Challenging patents and other clearance actions in Europe

Find out more about post-grant offensive options including EPO oppositions, UKIPO non-binding validity opinions, and revocation actions at the UKIPO, UPC or national courts. To post-grant defensive options including UPC protective letters, UKIPO non-binding infringement opinions, and UPC or national court declarations of non-infringement (DNIs).  

Our brochure also covers pre-grant options including third-party observations at the EPO, UKIPO, German Patent Office (DPMA), and at the World IP Office (WIPO).

UPC at Mewburn Ellis

The UPC is transforming European patent litigation – Mewburn Ellis is right at the forefront. In this film, our UPC experts Matthew Naylor and Lucy Coe highlight how we leverage decades of EPO opposition experience and insights from our UPC Weekly series to help clients stay ahead.  

ME Forward Masthead White 2