Memorandum 1
Submission from City of London Law Society,
IP sub-committee
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
OFFICE REVIEW
OF THE
COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL
("CT")
The City of London Law Society ("CLLS")
acts as the local law society of the City of London. It represents
the professional interests of City solicitors, who make up 15%
of the profession in England and Wales, by commenting on matters
of law and practice and by making representations on the issues
and challenges facing the profession and their clients. It organises
itself into committees, around legal topics. The intellectual
property committee is made up of representatives of members' firms
who practise solely or mainly in the intellectual property field
and who have extensive experience in litigating IP rights and
in transactions involving the exploitation of IP rights.
The CLLS has considered the UKIPO review of
the CT and, in general terms, supports the recommendations of
the authors of the review. In particular, the CLLS is in favour
of the appointment of a full time President/Chairman to provide
continuity, and of the proposal that early and effective case
management powers should be exercised by the Chairman and deputy
chairmen to ensure that cases are dealt with quickly, effectively
and at a proportionate cost. To this end, the CLLS is in favour
of dispensing with lay members, the substitution of the CPR for
the CT rules and the giving of clear directions with strict timetables
at an early case management conference. The proposal that the
CT should take an active part in formulating methodologies for
the objectification of the criteria for the conditions of a licensing
scheme, tariff or licence, and the suggestion that, when tariffs
or licensing schemes are introduced, the reasoning behind their
structure should be clearly shown, are also supported by the CLLS.
The CLLS notes that the proposals will require proper funding
from the Government and hopes that this will occur.
With regard to evidence, however, whilst the
CLLS agrees that it would be useful for the chairmen to encourage
the parties to direct their evidence to answering specific questions
and for the chairmen to exercise their powers to award costs against
parties whose evidence has not been directed towards the key issues,
the CT should not be prescriptive in the manner in which the parties
choose to present their cases. For example, the CLLS feels that
the parties should be free to adduce their own expert evidence
and to conduct oral cross-examination of witnesses, subject always
to being penalised in costs should their evidence or case presentation
unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. Again proper case management
should be used to ensure that any dispute is dealt with sensibly
and proportionately, but not at the expense of compromising quality
of justice.
The CLLS supports the recommendation that licensing
bodies should have the ability to commence a reference under ss
118 and 125 CDPA 1988 (provided that there are clear rules concerning
the ability of third parties to challenge a scheme or tariff after
a ruling) and the re-statement of the principle that the CT should
be balanced in its approach to the issues between the licensor
and the user and have no disposition in favour of one party or
the other.
January 2008
|
