UK Patent Litigation: A Technical Expert's Perspective

UK patent litigation operates through a sophisticated two-tier court system with distinct procedural requirements, cost management mechanisms, and technical evidence standards. For international companies, patent holders, and accused infringers navigating UK patent disputes, understanding these UK-specific features is essential for effective patent enforcement and defence. As technical experts with deep UK experience, we guide you through the complexities of this specialised litigation landscape.

This article provides general information about UK patent litigation procedures. It does not constitute legal advice. For specific guidance on your situation, please consult qualified legal counsel.

This article focuses on England & Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have different procedures.

UK Patent Litigation System Overview

The UK patent litigation system operates through a sophisticated two-tier approach within the England and Wales High Court system. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 63, patent claims are allocated to either the Patents Court or the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC), depending on case complexity and value.1 The Intellectual Property List, a specialist court list within the Business and Property Courts, handles two distinct categories of cases: patent-related claims (including supplementary protection certificates) and other intellectual property rights such as copyrights and trade marks.68

Both courts are part of the Business and Property Courts of the High Court, situated at the Rolls Building in London.2 The Patents Court is staffed by nine nominated judges including the Chancellor of the High Court and specialised IP judges such as Mr Justice Meade (Judge in charge of Intellectual Property), Mrs Justice Bacon DBE, and Mr Justice Mellor.69 IPEC provides a streamlined forum for lower-value cases with cost and damages caps designed to make patent litigation accessible to SMEs.3

Cases are distributed based on precise value thresholds: IPEC handles claims not exceeding £500,000 in compensation (though this cap may be waived by agreement), while the Patents Court handles larger, more complex patent-related claims exceeding this threshold.70 Claims valued at £10,000 or less can utilise IPEC's Small Claims track.71 This systematic allocation ensures appropriate procedural treatment based on both case value and complexity.

The system's design prioritises specialist judicial expertise—all patent cases are heard by judges with deep IP knowledge rather than generalist courts, reflecting decades of development in creating specialised patent litigation infrastructure.4

Pre-Litigation Requirements

Letter Before Action (Mandatory Requirement)

While there is no specific pre-action protocol for Patents Court litigation, the Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols practice direction requires claimants to send a "letter before action" with concise details of the claim, including the nature of the acts complained of and the relief sought.5 This letter must give defendants a reasonable period to respond—typically 14 days but sometimes longer—before proceedings commence.6

Failure to send a letter before action may result in adverse costs awards against the claimant, particularly if the defendant indicates they will not contest the claim when served with proceedings.7 However, courts recognise circumstances where giving notice is undesirable, particularly where there is a "race to court" between parties in different jurisdictions to establish jurisdiction first.8

Unjustified Threats Risks

The Patents Act 1977, as amended by the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017, creates significant risks for patent holders sending pre-litigation communications.9 Section 70A makes threats of infringement proceedings actionable by any aggrieved person, subject to important exceptions.10

A communication contains a "threat of infringement proceedings" if a reasonable person in the position of a recipient would understand that a patent exists and a person intends to bring proceedings for infringement.11 Critically, threats are not actionable if the alleged infringement consists of making or importing a product for disposal, or using a process—but threats regarding other activities (such as selling) remain potentially actionable.12

Care must be taken when writing letters before action, as they should generally only be sent to manufacturers, importers, or process users to avoid creating actionable threats against downstream parties.13

IPEC Track: Streamlined Patent Litigation

Purpose and Accessibility

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court serves as a specialist forum for smaller, shorter, less complex, or lower-value intellectual property actions, including patent cases.14 IPEC's design prioritises accessibility for SMEs and efficient resolution of disputes that don't warrant full Patents Court procedures.

Cost and Damages Caps

IPEC operates under strict financial constraints that make litigation predictable and proportionate:15

• Damages cap: £500,000 maximum (waivable by agreement)
• Cost recovery cap: £60,000 per side for liability proceedings
• Additional cap: £30,000 for damages proceedings

These caps increased from £50,000 to £60,000 effective October 1, 2022, implemented through The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/783).72 This represented the first cost cap increase in 12 years since IPEC's introduction in 2010.73 However, when adjusted for inflation since 2010, the caps would theoretically be approximately £70,000 and £35,000 respectively, meaning losing parties now face roughly 15% cheaper exposure in real terms compared to 2010.74

If a claimant obtains a result equal to or better than a Part 36 settlement offer, courts typically apply a 25% uplift to the costs cap, potentially allowing recovery of up to £75,000.17 The cost caps remain particularly attractive to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as they limit exposure to the opposing party's costs if unsuccessful.75

Streamlined Procedure and Timeline

IPEC uses active case management to ensure shorter trial lengths, typically lasting no more than 2-3 days maximum.18 The court aims to bring cases to trial within 12-18 months of the claim being issued.19 IPEC operates both multi-track (for claims up to £500,000) and small claims track (up to £10,000) procedures.20

The IPEC Guide was revised in November 2024, providing current procedural guidance for practitioners.21

Patents Court Track: Complex Patent Disputes

High-Value, Complex Cases

The Patents Court handles intellectual property disputes concerning patents, registered designs, and plant varieties where cases exceed IPEC's jurisdictional limits or involve significant complexity.22 Unlike IPEC, the Patents Court operates without cost or damages caps, allowing full recovery of reasonable legal costs from losing parties.23

Full Procedure and Extensive Disclosure

Patents Court cases follow comprehensive disclosure procedures under CPR Part 31 and CPR Practice Direction 57AD, which substantially reformed the disclosure regime effective October 1, 2022.24 The court uses active case management but allows extensive disclosure appropriate for high-value, complex patent disputes.25

Extended Timeline and Case Management

The Patents Court aims to bring cases to trial within 12 months of claim issuance, with judgment typically delivered within 12 to 15 months at first instance.76 Complex cases often extend to 18 to 36+ months depending on technical complexity and international coordination requirements.26 Trials vary significantly in length, with recent cases showing durations ranging from 3 to 9 days, categorised by the court as 2 to 5 days, 5 to 10 days, and over 10 days based on estimated hearing time.27

Following service of the defence, the claimant can apply for a Case Management Conference (CMC) hearing where the court orders a timetable of directions if parties cannot agree in advance.77 A typical CMC directions order addresses time for service of further statements of case, identification of patent claims relied upon at trial, timetables for disclosure and expert evidence, permission for experiments, production of technical primers, and estimated trial length with listing windows.78 The Patents Court Guide provides specimen orders for directions to assist practitioners.79

Expedition can be sought where necessary, most commonly when a patentee seeks an interim injunction or claims irreparable harm from continued infringement.80

UK Procedural Milestones

Pleadings Stage

Patent litigation begins with the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim, setting out the patent(s) in suit, alleged infringement, and relief sought.28 Defendants respond with a Defence and, commonly, a Counterclaim challenging patent validity under section 72 of the Patents Act 1977.29

Validity may be challenged on limited grounds: the invention is not patentable, the patent was granted to the wrong person, the specification lacks sufficient disclosure, the specification extends beyond the original application, or patent protection was improperly extended by amendment.30

Disclosure Phase

Disclosure requirements differ significantly between courts and underwent substantial reform in October 2022. IPEC operates proportionate disclosure to control costs and case duration,31 while the Patents Court follows the Business and Property Courts disclosure scheme under CPR Practice Direction 57AD, which became permanent from October 1, 2022, replacing the previous disclosure pilot scheme CPR PD 51U.81

CPR PD 57AD introduced three core concepts: Initial Disclosure served with the statement of case, Disclosure Review Documents to identify issues for disclosure, and Extended Disclosure using five available disclosure models.82 Key reforms included exempting Part 8 Claims unless otherwise ordered, clarifying that "Adverse Documents" include information contradictory or materially damaging to a party's case, and increasing the value threshold for "Less Complex Claims" from £500,000 to £1 million.83

The Patents Court allows extensive disclosure appropriate for high-value disputes under CPR 63.9 and CPR PD 63A paragraphs 6.1-6.3,32 including source code disclosure in software patent cases and comprehensive prior art searches.33 The reformed disclosure regime aims to front-load costs through early engagement while reducing unnecessary disclosure and focusing parties on real issues.84

Expert Evidence Requirements

Both courts operate under CPR Part 35, which governs expert evidence and establishes that experts have an overriding duty to the court.34 Expert reports must comply with CPR Part 35 requirements, and Practice Direction 35 provides supplementary guidance.35

In patent cases, the court may direct single joint experts for certain issues, though parties typically present separate technical experts for core infringement and validity issues.36 Experts participate in joint meetings aimed at narrowing technical disputes before trial.37

Trial Proceedings and Appeal Routes

UK patent trials are decided by judges alone—there are no jury trials for patent disputes in England and Wales.38 This contrasts sharply with the US system and ensures technically trained judicial decision-making on complex patent issues. Unlike the bifurcated approach common in Germany, UK courts typically hear infringement and validity issues together in a single trial rather than separately.91

Appeal procedures follow a structured hierarchy under section 97 of the Patents Act 1977. Appeals from the Intellectual Property Office (comptroller) to the Patents Court are generally limited to a review of the comptroller's decision unless the court considers a re-hearing would be in the interests of justice, with appeals typically filed within 28 days of the decision.92

Appeals from the Patents Court to the Court of Appeal are more restricted and may only proceed where the comptroller's original decision was given under specific sections (including sections 8, 12, 18, 20, 27, 37, 40, 61, 72, 73, or 75) or where the ground of appeal is that the Patents Court's decision is wrong in law.93 Leave to appeal must be obtained from either the Patents Court or the Court of Appeal.94

Interim Relief and Injunctions

UK courts apply the American Cyanamid test when considering interim injunctions, a framework established in the House of Lords decision American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 UKHL 1—itself a patent infringement case.95 The test requires consideration of: (1) whether there is a serious issue to be tried, (2) adequacy of damages as remedy, (3) balance of convenience, and (4) preservation of the status quo.96

Recent high-profile cases demonstrate active use of interim relief, such as the Court of Appeal granting an interim injunction to AstraZeneca against Glenmark regarding dapagliflozin patents in April 2025, overturning the High Court's earlier refusal.97

Technical Evidence in UK Patent Litigation

Expert Report Requirements and Technical Primers

Technical experts in UK patent litigation must provide detailed reports addressing infringement analysis through claim charts, prior art analysis for validity challenges, and source code review for software patents.39 In our experience, expert reports must comply with CPR Part 35 requirements and demonstrate the expert's qualifications and methodology.40

UK patent courts employ sophisticated mechanisms for managing technical evidence through two key tools. First, courts typically require parties to provide an agreed technical primer at the Case Management Conference for cases involving non-simple technology.85 These primers introduce basic undisputed technology relevant to the case and identify which parts constitute common general knowledge of the skilled person at the relevant date, with the claimant usually producing an initial draft and the defendant providing comments before final agreement.86

More recently, practice has shifted towards statements of agreed common general knowledge, produced after expert evidence exchange, which set out areas where parties' experts agree on common general knowledge aspects and are typically provided with skeleton arguments for trial alongside a disputed common general knowledge list.87 Expert evidence is instructed after these mechanisms to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Experts cannot simply "swot up" on unfamiliar technical matters; additional reading to understand context is permissible only if the expert does not attempt to express views on subjects they've only recently studied.41

Expert's Duty to Court and Single Joint Experts

Technical experts have an overriding duty to help the court on matters within their expertise, which supersedes any obligation to the party instructing them.42 Experts must provide independent opinions and cannot serve the exclusive interest of those retaining them, confining their opinions to matters material to the dispute and within their expertise.43

Courts may direct single joint experts (SJEs) under CPR 35.1 and 35.2(2) to prepare reports instructed jointly by both parties for certain issues, though parties typically present separate technical experts for core infringement and validity issues.88 SJE evidence is presented through written questions and cross-examination.89

Joint Expert Meetings

The court typically orders joint meetings between technical experts to identify areas of agreement and disagreement, reducing trial time and focusing judicial attention on genuine technical disputes.44 These meetings produce joint statements that significantly streamline trial proceedings and are governed by CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35.90

How UK Differs from US Patent Litigation

Court Structure Comparison

Aspect	UK	US
Courts	Specialised Patents Court & IPEC	Federal district courts nationwide
Judges	Specialist IP judges only	Generalist judges with occasional patent cases
Jury Trials	Never—judge-only decisions	Historically common, now limited to damages
Venue Selection	London (Rolls Building) primarily	Forum shopping across multiple districts

Case Management Differences

Aspect	UK	US
Cost Caps	IPEC: £60k liability, £30k damages	None—unlimited cost exposure
Case Timeline	12-18 months (IPEC), 18-36+ months (Patents Court)	Often 3-5+ years
Discovery Scope	Proportionate, court-controlled	Historically extensive, now more limited
Costs Shifting	Loser pays winner's costs (subject to caps)	Each party bears own costs

Strategic Differences

Aspect	UK	US
Bifurcation	Rare—validity and infringement heard together	Sometimes bifurcated
Claim Construction	Judge determines as matter of law	Judge determines (post-Markman)
Unjustified Threats	Significant risk under Patents Act 1977	No equivalent doctrine
Appeal Route	Court of Appeal, then Supreme Court	Federal Circuit, then Supreme Court

Strategic Considerations for Patent Litigation

Advantages of UK Litigation

The UK system offers several strategic advantages: faster resolution timelines, predictable costs through IPEC caps, specialist judicial expertise, and costs shifting that incentivises meritorious claims while deterring weak cases.45 The absence of jury trials ensures technically trained decision-making on complex patent issues.46

Challenges and Risks

Key challenges include loser-pays cost shifting creating financial risk for unsuccessful parties, unjustified threats provisions requiring careful pre-litigation strategy, and shorter preparation timeframes demanding efficient case development.47 International parties must adapt to UK procedural requirements and cultural differences in litigation approach.48

Forum Selection Considerations and Brexit Impact

When choosing between UK and other jurisdictions, consider the UK's specialist courts, relatively predictable timelines, and strong injunctive relief traditions.49 However, evaluate whether UK damages levels and market size justify litigation costs compared to larger markets like Germany or the US.50

Brexit's impact on UK patent litigation strategy is significant. The UK formally withdrew from the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) on July 20, 2020, and implemented The Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) (Repeal and Revocation) Regulations 2021.98 This withdrawal means the UK operates outside the UPC system, which now functions across 18 EU member states.99

The absence of UK participation represents "a great tragedy" for the UPC system, as English law principles and FRAND jurisprudence developed over 200 years are not incorporated into UPC decision-making.100 Germany has become the dominant UPC jurisdiction, receiving over 90% of cases that would likely have been filed in UK divisions had the UK remained involved.101 The UK patent system continues to operate under the European Patent Convention (EPC) framework outside the UPC structure, maintaining its role as an independent national court system for patent disputes.102

This creates strategic considerations for patent holders: UK validation and litigation remains necessary for UK market protection, as UPC decisions do not extend to the UK territory. Conversely, accused infringers cannot rely on UPC revocation proceedings to eliminate UK patent rights, requiring separate UK validity challenges.

Practical Guidance for Different Parties

For Patent Holders

We recommend preparing technical evidence thoroughly before sending letters before action, ensuring claims are well-supported and potential unjustified threats issues are addressed.51 Choose between IPEC and Patents Court based on case value, complexity, and risk tolerance.52 Engaging technical experts early in the process supports pleadings and case strategy development.53

For Accused Infringers

Respond promptly and substantively to letters before action to demonstrate good faith and potentially avoid adverse cost consequences.54 We advise conducting comprehensive prior art searches immediately upon notice of potential infringement claims.55 Assess case merits honestly, considering the UK's costs-shifting regime and relatively fast timeline to trial.56

For International Parties

We find that UK patent litigation differs substantially from US practice—working with experienced UK counsel and technical experts familiar with local procedures is essential.57 Consider the UK's strong injunctive relief tradition and relatively fast timeline when evaluating litigation strategy.58 Plan for the possibility of costs awards against unsuccessful parties.59

Technical Expert's Role Throughout Litigation

Pre-Litigation Analysis

We assist with pre-litigation assessment of infringement and validity issues, helping determine case strength before committing to expensive litigation.60 This analysis informs letter before action content and strategic decisions about forum selection and case positioning.61

Supporting Pleadings

We help draft technical portions of pleadings, ensuring accurate claim chart development and prior art analysis that supports legal arguments.62 Our early involvement ensures consistency between pleadings and eventual expert reports.63

Disclosure Phase Support

During disclosure, we help identify relevant documents and assist with source code reviews in software patent cases.64 We provide technical context for document relevance assessments and help prioritise disclosure efforts.65

Expert Reports and Trial Testimony

Technical experts prepare detailed reports analysing infringement and validity issues, participate in joint meetings with opposing experts, and provide trial testimony.66 Their reports must comply with CPR Part 35 requirements while addressing complex technical issues accessibly for judicial decision-makers.67

Critical Mistakes to Avoid in UK Patent Litigation

In our experience working on UK patent disputes, we consistently see parties make avoidable errors that significantly harm their position. Here are the most damaging mistakes we encounter:

Pre-Litigation Errors

Mistake	Consequence	What to Do Instead
Sending threatening letters to retailers/distributors	Actionable unjustified threats claim	Only contact manufacturers, importers, or process users
Failing to send a letter before action	Adverse costs awards even if you win	Always send proper letter with 14+ days response time
Making broad infringement allegations without specifics	Weak case foundation, credibility damage	Specify exact claims, products, and acts of infringement
Ignoring response deadlines	Default judgment risk	Respond within specified timeframes

Forum Selection Errors

Mistake	Consequence	What to Do Instead
Filing in Patents Court when IPEC appropriate	Excessive costs, disproportionate exposure	Assess case value and complexity honestly
Filing in IPEC for genuinely complex cases	Risk of transfer, delay, cost escalation	Accept Patents Court costs for complex disputes
Underestimating UK cost-shifting risk	Financial exposure if unsuccessful	Factor potential adverse costs into litigation budget

Expert Evidence Errors

Mistake	Consequence	What to Do Instead
Instructing experts unfamiliar with UK procedures	Inadmissible or weak evidence	Use experts experienced in CPR Part 35 requirements
Expert "swotting up" on unfamiliar technology	Excluded evidence, credibility damage	Instruct genuinely qualified experts from the outset
Failing to participate meaningfully in joint expert meetings	Missed narrowing opportunities, judicial criticism	Engage constructively to identify genuine disputes
Late expert instruction	Rushed reports, missed deadlines	Engage experts early in the process

Strategic Errors

Mistake	Consequence	What to Do Instead
Applying US litigation assumptions to UK cases	Procedural missteps, cost overruns	Understand UK-specific procedures from the start
Ignoring Brexit implications for European strategy	Gaps in UK protection	Maintain separate UK validation and enforcement
Underestimating timeline speed	Insufficient preparation	Plan for 12 to 18 month timeline from the outset

Conclusion

UK patent litigation offers a sophisticated, specialist system that balances accessibility through IPEC with comprehensive procedures for complex disputes through the Patents Court. The system's emphasis on specialist judicial expertise, proportionate procedures, and predictable costs creates opportunities for effective patent enforcement and defence.

Success in UK patent litigation requires understanding the system's unique features: mandatory letters before action, unjustified threats risks, cost and damages caps in IPEC, specialist judicial decision-making, and the central role of technical experts throughout the process. International parties benefit from early engagement with UK-experienced counsel and technical experts who understand local procedures and judicial expectations.

As technical experts practising in this system, we emphasise that UK patent litigation rewards thorough preparation, honest case assessment, and strategic forum selection. The system's relatively fast timeline and costs-shifting regime create both opportunities and risks that require careful navigation with expert guidance.

---

Sources

[1] Civil Procedure Rules Part 63.2 - Scope of Section II, https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part63

[2] Patents Court, UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, https://judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/business-list-general-chancery/intellectual-property-list/patents-court

[3] Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide (November 2024), UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, https://judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/business-list-general-chancery/intellectual-property-list/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-ipec/guide

[4] Patents Court Guide (February 2025), UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

[5] WIPO International Guide to Patent Case Management for Judges - United Kingdom, Section 9.6, https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-kingdom/9.6

[6] WIPO International Guide to Patent Case Management for Judges - United Kingdom, Section 9.6.1, https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-kingdom/9.6.1

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Patents Act 1977, Section 70, as amended by Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/37/section/70

[10] Patents Act 1977, Section 70A, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-patent-act-1977/section-70a-unjustified-threats-actionable-threats

[11] Patents Act 1977, Section 70A; Manual of Patent Practice Section 70, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-70-remedy-for-groundless-threats-of-infringement-proceedings

[12] Patents Act 1977, Section 70A(3)

[13] Manual of Patent Practice Section 70

[14] IPEC Guide (November 2024), Section 1.1

[15] IPEC Guide (November 2024), Section 1.2

[16] "IPEC cost recovery increases to £60,000," Waterfront Law, https://waterfront.law/ipec-cost-recovery-increases-to-60000/

[17] Ibid.

[18] WIPO International Guide - UK, Section 9.9.1, https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-kingdom/9.9.1

[19] Practice Statement: Listing of Cases for Trial in the Patents Court, UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, https://judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/practice-statement-listing-of-cases-for-trial-in-the-patents-court

[20] Work of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, https://judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/business-list-general-chancery/intellectual-property-list/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-ipec/work

[21] IPEC Guide (November 2024)

[22] Patents Court, UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

[23] Patents Court Guide (February 2025)

[24] Civil Procedure Rules Practice Direction 57AD; "Disclosure in intellectual property disputes," LexisNexis, https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/disclosure-in-intellectual-property-disputes

[25] Ibid.

[26] Practice Statement: Listing of Cases for Trial in the Patents Court

[27] Patents Court listed trials, GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/patents-court-diary/patents-court-listed-trials

[28] Civil Procedure Rules Part 63; Patents Court Guide

[29] Patents Act 1977, Section 72, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-patent-act-1977/section-72-revocation-of-patents-power-to-revoke-patents-on-application

[30] Patents Act 1977, Section 72(1)

[31] IPEC Guide (November 2024), disclosure provisions

[32] Civil Procedure Rules Part 63.9; Practice Direction 63A, paragraphs 6.1-6.3

[33] Patents Court Guide procedures

[34] Civil Procedure Rules Part 35, https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35

[35] Practice Direction 35 - Experts and Assessors, https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part35/pd_part35

[36] Civil Procedure Rules Part 35.7, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/rule/35.7

[37] Civil Procedure Rules Part 35; Practice Direction 35

[38] UK patent litigation overview - confirmed no jury trials in patent cases

[39] "Patent Litigation in Practice Series: Spotlight on the UK: The use of experts," Bird & Bird, https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2024/uk/patent-litigation-in-practice-series-spotlight-on-the-uk-the-use-of-experts

[40] Civil Procedure Rules Part 35

[41] "Expert's Attempt to Swot-up in Patent Dispute is Insufficient," EIP, https://eip.com/uk/latest/article/expert_s_attempt_to_swot_up_in_patent_dispute/

[42] Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims (CJC), https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/experts-guidance-cjc-aug-2014-amended-dec-8.pdf

[43] Ibid.

[44] Civil Procedure Rules Part 35; Practice Direction 35

[45] UK patent litigation system advantages analysis

[46] No jury trials in UK patent disputes

[47] UK litigation risks and challenges assessment

[48] International parties considerations in UK patent litigation

[49] Forum selection strategic analysis

[50] UK vs other jurisdictions market considerations

[51] Patent holder strategic guidance

[52] IPEC vs Patents Court selection criteria

[53] Early expert engagement benefits

[54] Accused infringer response guidance

[55] Prior art search requirements for defendants

[56] Case merit assessment in UK system

[57] International party adaptation requirements

[58] UK injunctive relief and timeline considerations

[59] Costs award risks for international parties

[60] Pre-litigation expert analysis role

[61] Letter before action technical content

[62] Expert support for pleadings preparation

[63] Consistency between pleadings and expert reports

[64] Technical expert role in disclosure phase

[65] Document relevance and prioritisation

[66] Expert report and trial testimony requirements

[67] CPR Part 35 compliance for technical experts

[68] The Intellectual Property List, GOV.UK Courts and Tribunals, https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/the-intellectual-property-list

[69] Judges of the Patents Court, UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, https://judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/business-and-property-courts/business-list-general-chancery/intellectual-property-list/patents-court/judges

[70] Business and Property Courts Intellectual Property List case allocation, https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/the-intellectual-property-list

[71] Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide (November 2024), Section 1.2

[72] The Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/783); "IPEC cost recovery increases to £60,000," Waterfront Law, https://waterfront.law/ipec-cost-recovery-increases-to-60000/

[73] "IPEC costs cap increases - still attractive, but far behind inflation," Freeths, https://freeths.co.uk/insights-events/legal-articles/2022/ipec-costs-cap-increases-still-an-attractive-venue-but-increase-is-far-behind-inflation

[74] Ibid. (inflation analysis showing real-terms comparison to 2010 levels)

[75] Ibid. (SME accessibility analysis)

[76] WIPO International Guide to Patent Case Management for Judges - UK, Section 9.6.4, https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-kingdom/9.6.4

[77] Ibid.

[78] Ibid. (CMC directions order components)

[79] Patents Court Guide (February 2025), Annex B - Specimen orders

[80] WIPO International Guide - UK, Section 9.6.4 (expedition criteria)

[81] Practice Direction 57AD – Disclosure in the Business and Property Courts, https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-57a-business-and-property-courts/practice-direction-57ad-disclosure-in-the-business-and-property-courts

[82] "From 51U to 57AD – The Disclosure Pilot Scheme Becomes Permanent," Bevan Brittan, https://www.bevanbrittan.com/insights/articles/2022/from-51u-to-57ad-the-disclosure-pilot-scheme-becomes-permanent/

[83] Ibid. (key amendments summary)

[84] "Chancellor of the High Court and Master of the Rolls welcome the Disclosure Working Pilot being approved," UK Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, https://judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/chancellor-of-the-high-court-and-master-of-the-rolls-welcome-the-disclosure-working-pilot-being-approved

[85] WIPO International Guide - UK, Section 9.6.9, https://www.wipo.int/patent-judicial-guide/en/full-guide/united-kingdom/9.6.9

[86] Ibid. (technical primer procedures)

[87] Ibid. (statements of agreed common general knowledge)

[88] Civil Procedure Rules Part 35.7; "Single joint experts," LexisNexis, https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/single-joint-experts

[89] Ibid.

[90] Civil Procedure Rules Part 35; Practice Direction 35

[91] "United Kingdom: Patent Litigation," The Legal 500, https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/united-kingdom-patent-litigation/

[92] Patents Act 1977, Section 97; Manual of Patent Practice Section 97, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-97-appeals-from-the-comptroller

[93] Patents Act 1977, Section 97(3); GOV.UK guidance on appeals from the comptroller, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-patent-act-1977/section-97-legal-proceedings-appeals-from-the-comptroller

[94] Ibid.

[95] American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd 1975 UKHL 1; "Interim injunctions—the American Cyanamid guidelines," LexisNexis, https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/interim-injunctions-the-american-cyanamid-guidelines

[96] "Interim Injunctions: What is the American Cyanamid Test?" Brett Wilson, https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/interim-injunctions-what-is-the-american-cyanamid-test/

[97] "Court of Appeal overturns High Court's decision and grants interim injunction to AstraZeneca against Glenmark," EIP, https://eip.com/uk/case-reports/court-of-appeal-overturns-high-court-s-decision-and-grants-interim-injunction-to-astrazeneca-against-glenmark

[98] The Patents (European Patent with Unitary Effect and Unified Patent Court) (Repeal and Revocation) Regulations 2021, https://www.gov.uk/eu-withdrawal-act-2018-statutory-instruments/the-patents-european-patent-with-unitary-effect-and-unified-patent-court-repeal-and-revocation-regulations-2021

[99] "The Unified Patent Court after Brexit," European Parliament, 282020%29649575_EN.pdf">https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2020/649575/IPOL_ATA%282020%29649575_EN.pdf

[100] "Unified Patent Court: The Impact of Brexit," EIP, https://www.eip.com/uk/thought-leadership/unified-patent-court-the-impact-of-brexit

[101] Ibid.

[102] "The Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court," GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-unitary-patent-and-unified-patent-court