Philippines aims to expedite IP violation cases with Rapid Rules
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Philippines aims to expedite IP violation cases with Rapid Rules

Sponsored by

hechanova-400px.png
flag-1195392.jpg

As the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines invites public comments on a proposal to streamline the adjudication of intellectual property violation cases, Editha R Hechanova of Hechanova Group summarises the key measures

In a move to expedite the resolution of intellectual property (IP) violation cases, on June 25 2024 the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines opened a public consultation on its proposed Rules of Procedure on Resolution of Actions without Provisional Remedies in IP Cases with Delimited Damages (the Rapid Rules). The deadline for the submission of comments is July 25 2024.

The salient points of the Rapid Rules are as follows:

  • The rules apply only to IP cases in which no provisional remedies are prayed for.

  • The damages claimed, including attorney’s fees and other legal costs, should not be lower than PHP 200,000 but should not exceed PHP 500,000.

  • No motion to dismiss on any of the grounds mentioned in the Rules of Court or in any other law shall be allowed, except on the ground of prescription.

  • By agreement of the parties, hearings may be conducted via online videoconference, by filing a joint motion at least seven days before the scheduled hearing.

  • Affidavits of witnesses shall be prepared in the language known to them, with an English translation if not in English, and shall contain, among others, a statement that they are answering the questions under oath and are fully conscious that they may face criminal liability for false testimony or perjury.

  • Complaints filed under the Rapid Rules must be verified and filed within four years from the date of commission of the violation, or if the date is unknown, from the date of discovery of the violation. The filing of the verified complaint and other submissions shall be by email and failure to comply shall be a ground for dismissal of the complaint.

  • Substantial evidence shall be sufficient to support a decision or an order.

  • Trials are expedited, with the hearing officer setting the case for successive and continuous trial, and the parties are given five days each to present their evidence. The decision of the hearing office shall be issued within 60 calendar days after the case is submitted for resolution.

  • The director or hearing officer is not bound by the technical rules of evidence, shall receive relevant and material evidence, and shall act according to justice and fairness.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A bill to protect people against replicas of their voices and likenesses could create more litigation and counselling opportunities for firms, say sources
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
While some UK IP attorney firms have hired solicitors, others believe focusing on their strengths is the key to success – including at the UPC
Six-year-old Khaleesi’s holiday was halted because the UK’s Passport Office said her name violated a Game of Thrones trademark
Complications with the USPTO's Patent Center are causing some practitioners to spend more time on administrative tasks, increasing the financial burden on clients
Law firm leaders say aggressive debt collection is a last resort and open communication is the best way to avoid billing conflicts
Laura Vartain Horn, formerly at the US Attorney’s Office, hopes to work on both trade secret and patent cases at Kirkland & Ellis
Ashton Chantrielle discusses why her job does not involve making coffee and reveals that, in another life, she would have worked in a plant nursery
Sources say an IT agreement between the UPC and EPO should fix long-standing CMS problems and is an opportunity to introduce new features
A trio of life sciences experts who moved to Morrison Foerster from Desmarais praised their new firm’s ‘outstanding’ litigation work
Gift this article