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 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Madeleine Kelly, the Australia-based IP firm’s new managing partner, discusses its new advisory offering, a promising fresh hire and changing market dynamics
Ahead of International Women’s Day, Véronique Dahan argues why a coordinated approach must be implemented to protect women from malicious use of AI
Sidhant Goel and Mohit Goel discuss how robust evidence and expert testimony helped convince the court to award their client $39m
An order from a US judge is the latest example of counsel being required to disclose AI use – and shows why it’s important to stay on top of AI trends
Brigitte Spiegeler discusses her love of litigation, and why her day always starts by the sea
Ralph Schroeder, President of RightHub, North America, outlines why businesses must rethink their IP models to align with modern technology
Kirkland partners explain how they came to advise Thomson Reuters in its successful copyright suit against ROSS Intelligence
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City
Counsel at four US firms explain the semiconductor work they’ve been involved in and how AI is affecting the industry
Lenovo, advised by Kirkland & Ellis, is entitled to an interim licence in its dispute with Ericsson
Gift this article