A significant legal case involving allegations of overcharging by a top intellectual property (IP) law firm, Marks & Clerk, has concluded with a settlement.
Marks & Clerk, a leading IP law firm, faced accusations of engaging in a ‘secret commissions’ scheme that allegedly overcharged thousands of small business clients. The representative claimant, Peter Rouse of Commission Recovery Limited (CRL), expressed that the settlement reached was ‘the best achievable outcome for class members’, highlighting that further litigation could have diminished potential returns.
CRL accused Marks & Clerk of referring its clients’ patent, design, and trademark renewal work to CPA Global (now Clarivate). In return, CPA Global allegedly paid secret commissions to Long Acre Renewals, a partnership involving current and former partners of Marks & Clerk. It was suggested that these commissions might have exceeded 20% of the total fees charged by CPA Global for renewal services, reportedly resulting in annual earnings of £2m to £3m for Marks & Clerk, and potentially totalling more than £50m.
The legal proceedings took a decisive turn when the Court of Appeal, in January, upheld a previous High Court ruling, confirming CRL’s right to act as the representative litigant. Mr. Rouse, an IP enforcement specialist with a background in law, was scheduled to participate in a trial to address specific issues in January 2025. However, a settlement was reached concerning the payments made by CPA Global between 14 March 2009 and 1 February 2018.
An agreed statement released recently clarified that the defendants deny any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, without admitting liability, they have consented to reimburse some clients with a portion of the CPA payments received during the specified period. This agreement also includes a substantial payment to CRL to cover its costs and the services provided by CRL or an affiliated entity. Consequently, the legal proceedings have been put on hold.
A spokesperson for Marks & Clerk, which is regulated by the Intellectual Property Regulation Board, commented on the resolution, stating, ‘We are glad that these proceedings have been settled so that we can concentrate on our core business and services to clients.’ The firm has not acknowledged the validity of the claims but expressed satisfaction over the litigation’s conclusion on mutually agreed terms.
The settlement, while not admitting any fault, marks a pivotal closure to the protracted legal battle between the parties. It allows Marks & Clerk to continue its professional practice without the encumbrance of ongoing litigation.
