Courts to rush trial of IP cases

by Tita C. Valderama

VERY soon some commercial courts in five Metro Manila cities would be designated to exclusively handle cases involving intellectual property rights with national jurisdiction. Selected judges would be trained to specialize on intellectual property rights (IPR) to raise the quality and consistency of decisions.

These are some of the strategies intended to improve the trial of IPR-related cases and, in the process, encourage the development of domestic and creative activities, entice more foreign investors into the country, ensure wider market access for local products, and facilitate technology transfer.

The courts eyed to specialize in IP cases are in Makati, Pasig, Mandaluyong, Manila and Quezon cities.

In a recent IP colloquium for the judiciary, Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno said having a few courts to focus on IPR cases would allow the judges and their staff members to develop an expertise in patents, trademarks and copyright.

“I know that this approach has been tried and tested in other jurisdictions in Europe, Japan, the United States and in Asia like Thailand and Malaysia… This is not new to us, or perhaps, a more focused approach is necessary,” the chief magistrate pointed out.

“Continuing education and training is the only way to keep up with the rapid and radical changes in all fields of knowledge in today’s innovation driven world. From IP law to anti-trust and competition law, today’s enlightened and progressive jurisprudence may be tomorrow’s stumbling block for reform as technology renders obsolete old ways of thinking and doing things,” he went on to emphasize the urgency of keeping up provisions of the law with the times.

There are more than 500 IP rights violation cases pending throughout the country, with 70 per cent lodged in Metro Manila, according to Adrian S. Cristobal Jr., director general of the Intellectual Property Office (http://www.ipophil.gov.ph/mainframe_homepage.htm), the agency tasked to protect and secure the exclusive rights of scientist, inventors, artist and gifted citizens to their intellectual property and creations.

Intellectual property includes ideas, brand names, designs, discoveries, symbols, formulas, inventions, knowhow, software and artworks. Audio and video clips that can be downloaded online are likewise covered by intellectual property rights. These are protected through copyright, patent, trademark, service mark and trade secret laws from infringement, imitation and dilution.

Of the total cases of alleged IPR violations, there were 64 reported convictions from 2001 to 2007. The trial of IP cases stretches for an average of six years.

In the first six months of the year, the Bureau of Customs and the Optical Media Board alone already confiscated P3.3 billion worth of counterfeit goods. In addition, the IP unit of the National Bureau of Investigation seized P11-million worth of fake merchandize and Unilever products during the same period.

The total piracy seizures in the first six months of 2009 almost equal the confiscations in 2008 estimated at P3.5 billion.

Goods seized ranged from computer software and hardware to apparel to accessories. There were also optical discs, replicating machines, and medicines.

Cristobal underscores the need to move the IP cases pending in courts to further strengthen the IP regime in the country though effective adjudication and prosecution.

Drawing inspiration from Chief Justice Puno, IP Philippines gathered IP stakeholders and, after months of consultations and meetings, came up with a set of special rules on IP litigation. The proposed rules are now in the hands of the Supreme Court for review and eventual adoption.

Here are five major features of the draft rules:

1. Designation of selected commercial courts in the National Capital Region as Special IP Courts to try violations of IPR nationwide.
2. Streamlining the litigation process for efficiency and expediency.
3. Destruction of counterfeit goods and making judgments immediately executory.
4. Technical advice and assistance to IP courts.
5. Judicial dispute resolution and mediation.

Intellectual property – the legal protection for ideas, artistic and literary creations, or inventions – has been recognized as the most valuable resource in today’s knowledge-based economy. The Philippine government believes its protection is vital to the development of domestic and creative activity, ensures market access for local products, and entices foreign investments.

At the IP colloquium, Judge Cesar Untalan, presiding judge of the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 149, says the proposed rules limiting the trial period for IP cases to eight months is a real challenge to demonstrate efficiency in the litigation process.

The draft rules seek to prohibit a number of pleadings, require verified complaints and answers, submission of affidavits in question and answer form, shorten waiting periods and require continuous trial to expedite litigation of IP cases.

According to Cristobal, the proposed rules also provide for conditions allowing the destruction of counterfeit goods to avoid the expensive storage costs throughout the litigation and appeal process. “The proposed rules allow IP courts to order the destruction of the seized counterfeit goods upon motion and evidence presented,” he says. Destruction is likewise proposed as an option when the accused is at large.

The Chief Justice hails this particular proposal, recognizing that some counterfeit goods may even find their way back into the market through surreptitious means if these are kept until the litigation process is completed.

The proposed rules are envisioned to bring about significant improvement in the judicial process concerning violations of intellectual property rights.

“As admitted by all stakeholders, litigating IP cases really takes a long period for various reasons. We feel that by streamlining the rules, judges and lawyers will be able to move the cases faster,” Cristobal says.

If the wheels of justice grind fast enough on IP cases, inventors and investors would feel secure that their creativity is amply protected.

According to Puno, even a near-perfect law or set of flawless rules would not bring about the desired change unless the people responsible for the processes and mechanisms make the system work. – PCIJ, November 2009