IP Office To Identify Improvements in Litigation to Hasten Resolution
of IP Cases
Extends Help to SC Judges to Adapt to Changing IP Environment Via IP Courses

Makati, January 16, 2009. Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines Director General Atty Adrian S Cristobal Jr  says that the IP Philippines Office will identify ways to improve the adjudication process for intellectual property (IP) related cases by enhancing the substantive and procedural aspects of litigation.

Cristobal gives this assurance in the light of the observation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno that intellectual property’s contribution to the national economy is on the rise. At the Second Advance Course on Intellectual Property Law (IP Law), Chief Justice Puno observed,  “From developments of the past decade or so, we have seen the rise and power of ideas in today’s knowledge-based economy, ideas that cut across so many aspects of human civilization: the arts, literature, science and technology, business and industry.”

The current developments in IP, Puno added, “have an impact on the judiciary as one of the principal democratic institutions of governance.”

Cristobal sees the partnership with the Judiciary as an important step in fostering an environment that fosters creativity and innovativeness. “Only with the full support of the Judiciary can we truly have an IP system that promotes creativity, a society that values intellectual property rights, and a country that uses IP for social and economic development.”

To handle intellectual property (IP) violation cases, the Supreme Court had initially designated all commercial courts as IP courts. But since IP cases were then too low, the model was set aside. However, the past five years have seen more IP cases being filed in the courts, as inventors, innovators and other knowledge and technology creators have become increasingly aware of their rights over their intellectual assets. Records from the Court Administrator show that as of September 2008, 526 cases of IPR violation cases are in various stages of litigation nationwide.

Cristobal identified three areas that they will be working on with the High Court to better equip the Justices in handling IP-related cases: capacity-building for IP; promotion of citizen participation in monitoring of IP cases; and examining all existing rules of procedure for adjudication in order to improve these to suit the substantive and procedural aspects of IP litigation.

The Second Advance Course on IP Law, held in November 2008 , was  a joint undertaking of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IP Philippines) and Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJa), the academic arm of SC. It is part of a continuing education program for justices, judges, lawyers, court personnel, and aspirants. Discussed during this course were legal issues concerning intellectual property litigation. The First Advance Course on IP Law dealt with the broad and fundamental areas of trademark, patent and copyright laws as well as emerging trends in the field of intellectual property.

IP Philippines promotes creativity and innovation through the country's intellectual property system. IP Philippines grants patents and trademarks, supports the creative industries and advocates a vibrant IP culture. More information at www.ipophil.gov.ph.