Monday, June 4, 2018

From Around the Blogs: Injunctions in the U.K., China, and India; Confidentiality and FRAND in Germany

1.  On EPLaw this morning, Rachel Mumby and Ben Millson published a post titled UK--Regeneron v. Kymab and Novo Nordisk, discussing a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales regarding the scope of an order for injunctive and other relief (copy of opinion here).  The order, among other things,  (1) exempts the defendants from delivering up a quantity of the infringing products (mice, cells, antibodies) that will be used for purposes exempted from liability under U.K. law; and (2) stays the injunction and delivery up pending appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court, on the ground that Kymab faces the risk of irreparable harm that outweighs the harm faced by Regeneron (see paras. 45-62 of the opinion).  Interesting post and opinion, particularly in light of my blog post last Monday on stays of injunction in the U.K.

Also on EPLaw, Alexander Haertel and Jonas Block last week published a post titled DE--Confidentiality Roulette in Proceedings.  The post discusses an April 25, 2018 decision of the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, setting forth the conditions under which an intervenor in a patent case will be allowed access to allegedly confidential business information disclosed to other parties under a nondisclosure agreement.  The authors believe that the effect of the decision will be that, in FRAND cases in particular, patentees will have a difficult time shielding comparable licenses from being reviewed by defendants and intervenors.  Definitely worth a read. For previous discussion on this blog, see here.

2.  On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Hui Zhang, Mengling Liu, and James Yang have published a ver informative post titled Beijing High Court upholds China's first-ever SEP injunction in Iwncomm v. Sony.  The authors express hope that the Supreme People's Court will grant review to clarify some of the issues presented.  For previous discussion on this blog, see here and here.

3.  On Spicy IP, Adarsh Ramanujan has published a post titled Understanding the Public Interest Element of the Injunction Analysis in Patent Infringement CasesThis is a very interesting post, highlighting the differences between and among India, the U.K., and the U.S. in evaluating the public interest factor, particularly in the case of health care related inventions.  For previous discussion on this blog, see, e.g., here and here.

No comments:

Post a Comment