2 Members of courts handling intellectual property disputes

Such judges are found in Germany at the BPG: at the time of writing, technical judges – that is, judges trained in technical and scientific fields – comprised 53 of the 94 judges employed by the BPG. These technical judges will participate in all cases relating to the properties of an invention, such as an appeal against a decision of the DPMA to refuse registration of a patent, as well as in utility models and (when a technical question arises) in design cases.

The Kenyan Industrial Property Tribunal, which hears patent, industrial designs and utility model cases, consists of a chairperson and four members, at least two of whom must have experience and/or expertise in industrial, scientific and technological fields. However, these members are not considered judges; they are appointed by the Minister of Industrialization, hold office for three years and are eligible for reappointment.

The German BPG will render its decisions in panels constituted of either only legally qualified judges (in trademark and most design cases) or a mixture of legally and technically qualified judges (in patent, utility model and some design cases).

The Kenyan Industrial Property Tribunal renders its decision in panels of three members, one of whom is usually technically qualified – although no formal rule exists mandating this composition.

Judges at the Patents Court in England and Wales will often possess technical expertise. This is not a formal requirement, however, and hence these judges cannot be considered technically qualified judges.

In Germany, honorary judges may deal with trademarks, registered designs and unfair competition. Honorary judges are members of the business community and they sit as lay members in commercial chambers. They are appointed on the qualified recommendation of the chambers of industry and commerce for a term of five years, and they can be reappointed. Their use in IP disputes is not popular, however, and litigants tend to prefer specialized IP chambers.

In Singapore, the judges delegated by the Chief Justice from the Supreme Court to sit in the SICC are “experienced specialist commercial judges in their own right”. ⁽¹⁾See SG Courts (Chapter 1, n. 8). Sitting in the SICC, the judges will hear IP cases of “international and commercial nature”. ⁽²⁾Ibid.

In England and Wales, the Judicial Appointments Commission may impose informal requirements during recruitment to particular positions, such as prior knowledge of IP law when recruiting judges to hear IP disputes.

In Germany, there is no requirement that a general judiciary judge who is to consider an IP dispute must possess any IP-specific or technical knowledge. Nevertheless, most of the Landgericht [regional court] judges who sit in the specialized IP chambers and deal with IP disputes are so experienced. The same is true of the judges of the specialized IP chambers of the OLG and the BGH, who will commonly have previously held office in the specialized IP chambers of the Landesgerichte before their appointment to the appellate or cassation instances.

In Canada, while an IP background is not a requirement, judges within the IPCSP will have either practiced IP law or gained expertise in IP law during their time as judges.

In Singapore, both the judges and assistant registrars dealing with IP cases within the specialized list at the General Division of the High Court specialize in IP law. The lead judge overseeing the IP list at the time of writing this report has over 30 years' experience in IP law and was one of Singapore's top IP litigators before being appointed to the bench.

In England and Wales, all judges of the IPEC and the Patents Court will possess IP knowledge and experience. The same applies to certain judges of the Court of Appeal and usually at least one judge at the Supreme Court.

In Germany, candidates must have passed a final examination at a technical or life science faculty at a German university, a technical or agricultural school, a mining academy or an equivalent institution in another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area. Candidates must also possess at least five years' experience in the field of technical natural science, coupled with related legal knowledge.

In Kenya, the criterion for appointment of technical members of the Industrial Property Tribunal is experience and/or expertise in industrial, scientific and technological fields.

The Federal Court of Canada holds continuing legal education (CLE) programs every year that deliver IP training, and the Chief Justice mandates that IP chamber judges are to pursue CLE externally, when practical and appropriate.

In France, the École nationale de la magistrature [National School of Magistrature] offers new judges a one-off two-week course on IP law. Additionally, when a new judge is allocated to a specialized chamber, they receive a so-called tutor – that is, a more experienced judge who can guide them in IP matters.

In Costa Rica, IP law is one of the subjects covered in an entry examination for candidates applying to the agrarian courts.

In Brazil, Costa Rica and Singapore, obligatory training on IP law applies to all judges, not only those sitting in the specialized IP divisions or chambers.

The Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA) provides regular training in various areas of law, including IP law.

Obligatory judicial training exists also in the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

While so-called assessors may be appointed in Canada under the Federal Courts Rules, they are employed only in relation to the assessment of costs or damages. ⁽³⁾See Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106), amended up to January 13, 2022, Canada, r. 52(1). The issue is, however, currently the subject of debate: a court-appointed expert may be beneficial, for example, where the court is not satisfied with the parties' experts.

The judicial research officials in Japan are full-time employees of the Tokyo and Osaka District Courts. Their role is to conduct research on technical matters relevant to cases considered by these courts. They are often recruited from among former JPO trial examiners and patent attorneys with specialized knowledge in various technical fields.

In Japan, while technical advisors may be involved in explanatory sessions, their explanation is not treated as evidence.

In France, the Code de procédure civile [ Civil Procedure Code] (CPC) provides that the court may appoint a technicien [technical advisor] to clarify a question of fact that requires technical advice. ⁽⁴⁾See Civil Procedure Code, consolidated August 2, 2025, France, art. 232. The technical advisor must remain objective and impartial. Their role is to prepare one of the three types of report provided for in the CPC, on which the parties may then make comment. ⁽⁵⁾Ibid. The technical advisor is not actively involved in the proceedings in the same way as a party's expert would be.

In Kenya, so-called assessors can be appointed in an advisory capacity where expert knowledge is required for the proper determination of the case.

Similarly, in the Philippines, so-called experts are appointed to provide advice on the technical details of a patent dispute.

In Singapore, the assessors generally sit with the court to educate it and they cannot be cross-examined. A special feature of the Singaporean legal system is the independent counsel, who advises as a sort of amicus curiae on points of law.

In England and Wales, the case law indicates that scientific advisors in patent cases should provide only the uncontroversial scientific background to the case. They must not be treated as a substitute for expert evidence; their purpose is to educate the court. The contentious elements of the case must be resolved by means of the parties' own expert evidence.

In the United States of America, the role of the expert is to act as a sounding board or tutor who aids the judge's understanding of the technology, for example, by explaining the terminology used in the field. Such court-appointed experts may be cross-examined.

In the United States of America, the practical significance of a technical advisor may differ considerably: some courts appoint them in very rare and compelling circumstances; others consider court experts to be justified because the parties' technical experts tend to advocate for their respective causes.

In Singapore, parties are encouraged to propose a single candidate by agreement; alternatively, they may propose a shortlist of candidates to serve as an assessor or independent counsel. Any such shortlist is to be finalized and filed before the first milestone pretrial conference.

In the Philippines, any such appointment – of not only a single expert but rather a committee of experts – is subject to a specific procedure in instances of IP disputes. If the court orders a committee of experts be convened, each party is required to nominate one expert and the court itself will nominate a third.