Bear with me on this one. I know that the length of hearings is not the most exciting subject, nor are light fittings, which was the subject of the case.
However, time estimates for trials of intellectual property (IP) claims are often more important than one might expect. Of course, the shorter the trial estimate, the better chance of securing an earlier date. Also, if a case can be dealt with in less than two days, it can be suitable for the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, which offers a quicker and (in some ways) cheaper model for litigating IP claims than the usual High Court multi-track. Four days or less, and it could be suitable for the Shorter Trials Scheme, which is another way of getting to a decision more quickly and cheaply than might otherwise be the case.
A few years ago (well ... 14 years ago) one of the leading IP judges at the time (Lord Justice Sir Robin Jacob) said that registered design cases should be able to be dealt with "in a few hours". That ambition has rarely been met, and design cases often expand into lengthy discussions and evidence about originality / novelty.
So it was quite remarkable to see that a case heard (remotely, via Teams) in June was completed in an hour. Some of the Teams hearings that have taken place over the last year have had technical issues lasting almost that long. The trial took place nine months after proceedings were issued, so quick justice indeed.
The facts of this case did make it more possible than is usually the case. No expert evidence. No challenge to the validity of the designs. However, it does show that with good preparation, and a constructive approach between the parties, litigation in the UK can be both thorough and speedy.
The comment of Jacob LJ in Proctor & Gamble Co v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd  EWCA Civ 936 that “[b]y and large it should be possible to decide a registered design case in a few hours” has been oft quoted, but rarely observed. This was one such case where the thorough preparation by the parties, the absence of evidence and (particularly) expert evidence, together with well-targeted skeleton arguments and to-the-point oral submissions meant that the trial was completed in just over an hour. The parties and those advising them are to be congratulated on their efficient and proportionate approach to the hearing.