 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
One suggestion
which, in the Working Party's view, may meet these criteria
involves the creation of a specialist list to deal with intellectual property and
information technology cases, an "IP/IT" specialist list. Plainly, increasing
specialisation by the court is likely to be an asset in this area. It is notable, for
instance, that in England and Wales, specialist treatment is envisaged for both areas of
practice.
(a)
Provision has been made by CPR 49, by practice direction
and by publication
of a Patents Court Guide
to deal with intellectual property proceedings.
(b)
Separately, provision has been made for "technology claims", but in a practice
direction also dealing with construction cases (rather than intellectual
property).
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) is empowered to
take on cases triable by the Queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions, and is
intended to take on cases which involve issues or questions "which are
technically complex or for which a trial by a judge of a TCC is for any other
reason desirable."
Whether an IP/IT specialist list would be justified has of course to be studied in
consultation with the legal profession and other interested parties. The Working Party
recommends that such consultation be pursued.
The Law Society also suggested creating specialist lists for company, "media" and
"real estate" cases. The Working Party does not consider that any case can be made
out in respect of "media" and "real estate" cases.
Notes
Made by the Law Society, APAA and the HKRRLS.
White Book, Vol 2, 2D-1.
Ibid, 2D-28 et seq.
Ibid, 2C-9 et seq.
White Book 2C-11.
|
 |
|