À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Respect de la propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé Outils et services en matière d’intelligence artificielle L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Application des droits de propriété intellectuelle WIPO ALERT Sensibilisation Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions WIPO Webcast Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Assistant de classification États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Lois Traités Jugements Recherche par ressort juridique

Royaume-Uni

GB448

Retour

Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No. 6) (Causes Relating to Intellectual Property) 1999 (S.I. 1999/1785 (S. 109))

 Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No.6) (Causes Relating to Intellectual Property) 1999

Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

1999 No. 1785 (S.109)

COURT OF SESSION, SCOTLAND

Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No.6) (Causes Relating to Intellectual Property) 1999

Made - - - - 18th June 1999

Coming into force - - 12th July 1999

The Lords of Council and Session, under and by virtue of the powers conferred on them by section 5 of the Court of Session Act 1988((1)and of all other powers enabling them in that behalf, do hereby enact and declare:—

Citation and commencement

1.—(1) This Act of Sederunt may be cited as the Act of Sederunt (Rules of the Court of Session Amendment No. 6) (Causes Relating to Intellectual Property) 1999 and shall come into force on 12th July 1999.

(2) This Act of Sederunt shall be inserted in the Books of Sederunt.

Causes relating to intellectual property

2.—(1) Chapter 55 (causes relating to intellectual property) of the Rules of the Court of Session 1994(2), shall be amended as follows.

(2) The judge known as the patents judge shall henceforth instead be known as the intellectual property judge; and accordingly, in each of rules 55.2, 55.14(1) and (2)(a), 55.15, 55.16(3) and 55.19(1) and (2)(a), for the words “patents judge”, wherever they occur (including in the heading to rule 55.2), there shall be substituted “intellectual property judge”((3)

(3) After rule 55.2 there shall be inserted—

Requirement for marking

55.2A. In a cause to which this Chapter applies, initiated—

(1) 1988 c. 36; section 5 was amended by the Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988 (c. 32), section 2(3) and by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 36), Schedule 4, paragraph 45.

(2) S.I.1994/1443. (3) Rule 55.19 was inserted by S.I. 1994/2901.

Document Generated: 2017-08-03 Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format.

(a) by summons, the pursuer shall, before presenting the summons to the General Department for signeting;

(b) by petition, the petitioner shall, before lodging the petition in the Petition Department,

mark it distinctly in red, both on the first page and on the backing, with the words “Intellectual Property Cause”; and thereafter every step of process in the cause shall be so marked by the person lodging it.”

(4) In rule 55.3— (a) for the heading and for paragraphs (1) and (2), there shall be substituted—

Procedural hearings

55.3.—(1) In a cause to which this Chapter applies, not later than five weeks after—

(a) if it is a cause initiated by summons, the closing of the record; or (b) if it is a cause initiated by petition, the expiry of any period of adjustment

allowed, the pursuer or petitioner shall enrol a motion, which shall be put out unstarred, for a date to be fixed for a hearing in accordance with this rule (a “procedural hearing”); and after consultation with the intellectual property judge the Keeper of the Rolls shall fix a date accordingly and shall notify it to the parties.

(2) Unless the parties have otherwise agreed, notification under paragraph (1) shall be given at least 14 days before the date so fixed.

(2A) Not later than 7 days after notification under paragraph (1) the parties may, having conferred with one another, jointly attend the Keeper of the Rolls that he may fix a different date, more convenient to them, for the procedural hearing.

(2B) To any motion enrolled by him under paragraph (1) the pursuer or petitioner shall append a note—

(a) identifying the points which he intends to raise, other than on a preliminary plea, at the procedural hearing; and

(b) giving his estimate of the likely duration of that hearing.”. (b) in paragraph (3), for the words “pre-proof hearing”, there shall be substituted “date notified

under paragraph (1)”; and (c) in each of paragraphs (4) to (7), for the word “pre-proof”, wherever it occurs, there shall

be substituted “procedural”. (5) In rule 55.4(1) (notices to admit), for the word “pre-proof” substitute “procedural”.

Saving

3. Paragraph 2 does not affect the provisions of Chapter 55 in their application to work done, or outlays incurred, before 12th July 1999.

Rodger of Earlsferry Edinburgh, Lord President 18 June 1999. I.P.D.

2

Document Generated: 2017-08-03 Status: This is the original version (as it was originally made). This item of legislation is currently only available in its original format.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Act of Sederunt)

This Act of Sederunt amends the Rules of the Court of Session in their application to causes relating to intellectual property so as to require that any summons, petition or other document lodged in the cause is clearly marked as so relating. The Act of Sederunt also amends the provisions of those Rules as to the fixing of what has been known as a pre-proof hearing and is now to be known as a procedural hearing; the main purpose of those amendments is to afford greater flexibility in fixing a date for that hearing. Provision is made for the judge known as the patents judge to be known instead as the intellectual property judge.

3