tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5202549570150301909.post4610271552355853804..comments2024-03-15T00:21:23.406-07:00Comments on Comparative Patent Remedies : Mei on Interlocutory Injunctions in IP Cases in England, Wales & IrelandThomas Cotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07145440504421320263noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5202549570150301909.post-43641558441807705442015-05-13T16:17:14.350-07:002015-05-13T16:17:14.350-07:00Interesting--sounds like the goal is to minimize t...Interesting--sounds like the goal is to minimize the costs of error from both false positive and false negatives.Thomas Cotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07145440504421320263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5202549570150301909.post-20188233689538287612015-05-13T16:16:13.870-07:002015-05-13T16:16:13.870-07:00Thank you for passing this along!Thank you for passing this along!Thomas Cotterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07145440504421320263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5202549570150301909.post-45207735395889383712015-05-08T05:46:51.677-07:002015-05-08T05:46:51.677-07:00In my view the correct principle was set out by Ho...In my view the correct principle was set out by Hoffmann J in Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1986] 3 All ER 772 (Ch.):<br /><br />“The principal dilemma about the grant of interlocutory injunctions, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is that there is by definition a risk that the court may make the 'wrong' decision, in the sense of granting an injunction to a party who fails to establish his right at the trial (or would fail if there was a trial) or alternatively, in failing to grant an injunction to a party who succeeds (or would succeed) at trial. A fundamental principle is therefore that the court should take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to have been 'wrong' in the sense I have described. The guidelines for the grant of both kinds of interlocutory injunctions are derived from this principle.”<br /><br />As I understand it, this approach is now standard in the UK for mandatory injunctions, though not for prohibitory injunctions, even though as Hoffmann J noted, there is no difference in principle. I expect the reason is that confining it to mandatory injunctions provides a basis for distinguishing Cyanamid.Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17573687140337856397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5202549570150301909.post-3717310497993836472015-05-07T16:50:48.965-07:002015-05-07T16:50:48.965-07:00Thanks, Thomas.
In Australia, we have in principl...Thanks, Thomas.<br /><br />In Australia, we have in principle retreated from the more liberal interpretations of American Cyanamid. Instead the patentee must show a prima facie case on the basis of the state of the evidence filed on the application: Samsung v Apple at [52] - [61]<br /><br />https://jade.barnet.com.au/Jade.html#article=258087&asv=citation_browser&sr=140578<br /><br />The strength of the case demonstrated plays into the balance of convenience issues.<br /><br />This becomes interesting when the respondent (defendant) counter-claims for revocation, but I think it is fair to say the patentees seem to be winning in most cases.<br /><br />Warwick<br />http://ipwars.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02954195004638238150noreply@blogger.com