In 1990, the Patents County Court (PCC) was established to provide an alternative to the High Court for patent cases, primarily for small and medium-sized entities as well as for private individuals. The purpose of the PCC was to provide a forum that would enable such parties to enforce their patent rights, regardless of opponent. This was originally intended to be achieved through a combination of special procedures and rights for solicitors and patent agents to conduct litigation, and, in addition to the Bar, have rights of audience in the court. The PCC was supposed to provide a speedier and in particular cheaper means of legal redress than the High Court.
As is well known, for a number of reasons the PCC in its initial form was not a great success. However, its current incarnation under Mr Justice Fysh is an altogether more successful and popular place, so much so that the question of whether the High Court or the county court is the appropriate forum is becoming a more frequently ventilated question. With the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in 1999, there is no longer any difference between the High Court and county courts in procedural terms. There is also no financial threshold in the PCC. The absence of clear distinction between the two jurisdictions has perhaps attracted cases to the PCC that ought not to have been so attracted. Decisions last year of both the High Court and the PCC in Smith v Halliburton and Kimberly-Clark v Procter & Gamble respectively provide some guidance on this issue.
