An International Guide to
Patent Case Management for Judges

Full guide

Download full guide Download current chapter
WIPO Translate
Google Translate

9.9.4 Statements of case The pleadings

Statements of case in IPEC are more detailed than those in the Patents Court. IPEC statements of case must set out concisely all the facts and arguments upon which the party serving the statement relies.171 This requires all relevant facts and arguments to be included in the statement of the case but concisely and at an appropriate level of detail. The CMC in IPEC (see Section is conducted on an issue-by-issue basis, and the parties and court need to know all of the issues for the conference. This is explained in the IPEC Guide in the following terms:

Part 63 rule 20(1) requires that a statement of case in IPEC must set out concisely all the facts and arguments upon which the party serving the statement relies. This is sometimes misunderstood. All relevant facts and arguments must be stated. But they should not be set out in a manner which includes every detail. There will be an opportunity by the time of the trial to explain to the court everything that matters. A good approach is to make the statement of case as concise as is possible, while considering whether any argument proposed to be run at trial and the basis for it will come as a surprise to an opponent who has read the statement of case. If not, the statement of case has probably been drafted in sufficient detail.


  • A statement of case alleging infringement of a patent must (a) state which of the claims are alleged to be infringed and (b) give at least one example of the defendant’s infringing product or process.
  • A statement of case alleging that a patent is invalid must specify the grounds on which the validity of the patent is challenged, including any challenge to a priority date. All prior art relied on must be specified and a copy of each item of prior art must be attached to the pleading. If it is alleged that a patent does not disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for it to be performed, the pleading must state which aspects of the invention cannot be made to work and in which respects the invention cannot be made to work.
  • A statement of case served in response to an allegation that the patent is invalid must state which claims are said to be independently valid.172

The active case management of litigation in IPEC requires the parties to identify, before the CMC (insofar as these have not already been articulated in the parties’ statements of case), (i) which claims are in issue, (ii) what they understand to be the inventive concept of those claims, (iii) the facts that are said to be relevant common general knowledge and (iv) the nature and characteristics of the skilled person should be identified.

The parties should bear in mind that, at the CMC, the court may require the number of claims in issue to be reduced, so consideration should be given to which claim is or which claims are most important to the party’s case. In most cases, the court will not allow a patentee to rely on more than three claims that are alleged to be independently valid and infringed. The patentee should create a suitable chart, diagram or other document stating which integers of the claim are embodied in the allegedly infringing product or are incorporated in the allegedly infringing process. Similarly, a party alleging that a patent is invalid because it lacks novelty or inventive step over prior art should create an appropriate document identifying which integers of the claim are present in the pleaded prior art. A party alleging invalidity is unlikely to be permitted to rely on more than three prior art citations. Insofar as these documents have not been produced as part of the statements of case, they must be produced before the CMC at the latest.

Statements of case in IPEC must be verified with a statement of truth signed by a person with knowledge of the facts alleged or, if no one person has knowledge of all the facts, by persons who between them have knowledge of all the facts alleged.173 Timing

Given the additional content to be included in statements of case, the timelines for filing a defense and subsequent statements of case are slightly different in IPEC. There is an additional requirement in IPEC that the particulars of claim must confirm whether or not paragraph 6 of the “Pre-action Conduct and Protocols” practice direction has been complied with.174

If no acknowledgment of service has been filed, the period for filing the defense is 14 days after service of the particulars of claim.175 If an acknowledgment of service has been filed, then the time limit for filing the defense is 42 days (if the particulars of claim confirm that paragraph 6 of the “Pre-action Conduct and Protocols” practice direction has been complied with)176 or 72 days (if it does not).177

A party’s defense (and counterclaim) must be served on every other party. The CPR does not specify a time limit for serving the counterclaim, but the IPEC Guide states that this should be done at the same time as filing the defense, and undue delay may carry adverse consequences in costs.178

A party’s reply (and reply and defense to counterclaim) must be filed and served on all other parties within 28 days of the service of the defense.179 If a party chooses to serve a reply to the defense to counterclaim, this must be both filed and served 14 days from the service of the defense to counterclaim.180

The time limits for service of statements of case in IPEC cannot be extended without the prior consent of the court.181 An application for an extension of time must be made before the expiry of the relevant period and should set out good reasons why the extension is required. Such applications are typically dealt with without a hearing.