Litigation proceedings<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n Pre-action steps<\/em><\/p>\n What pre-action steps are required or advised before bringing legal action? (For example, is pre-action mediation mandatory in your jurisdiction?)<\/strong><\/p>\n The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) sets out what steps parties should take before commencing litigation, including specific pre-action protocols for certain claims (ie, defamation). There is no specific pre-action protocol for technology disputes, but parties should follow the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols\u00a0<\/a>(PDPAC). At a minimum, parties are expected to write to each other setting out their position and disclosing key documents in a dispute. Parties are also required to consider whether negotiation or some form of alternative dispute resolution may assist in avoiding litigation.\u00a0<\/p>\n All pre-action requirements should be interpreted in the context of what is referred to as the overriding objective, the aim of which is to deal with cases justly and includes: minimising unnecessary expenditure and ensuring that cases are dealt with fairly, expeditiously and proportionately.<\/p>\n The main consequences for non-compliance are potential adverse costs awards and the proceedings being stayed until the parties follow the pre-action protocol. Compliance with a pre-action protocol is not required where pre-action correspondence would defeat the purpose of the proceedings.<\/p>\n Competent courts<\/em><\/p>\n Does your jurisdiction have a specialist court or other arrangements to hear technology disputes? Are there specialist judges for technology cases?<\/strong><\/p>\n The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) in London is a specialist division of the Business and Property Courts that typically conducts the hearing of technology disputes. A claim in the TCC is assigned to a particular judge, who will, in general, manage all the procedural directions and will eventually try the case, unless it is resolved beforehand.<\/p>\n Certain disputes relating to intellectual property rights must be brought in the Patents Court (for claims over \u00a3500,000), the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) (typically for claims under \u00a3500,000), or the Intellectual Property List of the Chancery Division.<\/p>\n Procedural rules<\/em><\/p>\n What procedural rules tend to apply to technology disputes?<\/strong><\/p>\n Where a case is brought in the TCC, then the standard CPRs are modified by CPR 60<\/a>. CPR 60 is also supplemented by\u00a0Practice Direction 60<\/a>\u00a0and the\u00a0Technology and Construction Court Guide<\/a>.<\/p>\n For intellectual property disputes, the standard CPRs are modified by CPR 63<\/a>, supplemented by\u00a0Practice Direction 63<\/a>. There is also an\u00a0Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide<\/a>; a\u00a0Patents Court Guide<\/a>\u00a0and a\u00a0Chancery Guide<\/a>.<\/p>\n Evidence<\/em><\/p>\n What rules and standard practices govern the collection and submission of evidence in your jurisdiction (eg, discovery\/disclosure obligations or obligations to preserve relevant documents)?<\/strong><\/p>\n A potential litigant (and its solicitors) is obliged to prevent potentially relevant documents from being altered, deleted or destroyed, whether accidentally, deliberately or routinely, by that party, its employees and affiliates and third parties. Solicitors are under a duty to inform their clients of the obligation to preserve potentially relevant documents as soon as litigation is contemplated. There are many sanctions that may be imposed on a litigant who destroys relevant documents once litigation is in reasonable contemplation, including being found in contempt of court or a costs award being made against them.\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/d2dzik4ii1e1u6.cloudfront.net\/images\/lexology\/static\/2111448a-61e9-4049-b169-9ed5c41aa379.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/dominiclevent.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/litigation-300x225.jpg\")
<\/a>