Intellectual Property Law

Prospective costs order; term extension - Gowers speaks

By Johanna Gibson, David Pearce, Jeremy Phillips and Ilanah Simon.

How much will it cost? asks Mr Justice Arnold

The IPKat once again thanks Lisa Chiarelli, this time for bringing his attention to the FT?s coverage of the decision by Mr Justice Arnold to require Allen & Overy to declare what its projected costs are in the battle between RIM and Visto.

The decision covers the second case between RIM and Visto. In the first case, A & O racked up over £5m in costs for a five day trial.

Mr Justice Arnold called the current costs system ?inadequate and unsatisfactory? and called for a more ?proactive? approach to controlling costs.

The IPKat (who would dearly love to see a copy of the decision) says this sounds jolly sensible. It?s fair that the losing party should have to pay costs, but if costs are allowed to spiral out of control then more defendants will be forced to settle, not because they necessarily have a bad case, but rather because of a fear of handing over a blank cheque for costs.

STOP PRESS: the full text of the decision is now available from Bailii here.

Also in the FT

Andrew Gowers? response to the UK?s volte-face on the copyright term for sound recordings.

Full post as published by IPKat on December 15, 2008 (boomark / email).