Interim Injunction Research Articles

Urgensi Pengaturan Tindakan Pelarangan Penjualan Produk Hasil Pelanggaran Rahasia Dagang Berdasarkan Perbandingan Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000 Tentang Rahasia Dagang dan Directive (EU) 2016/943

Trade secret is one of the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protected by the Law No. 30 Year 2000 on Trade Secrets. However, the Trade Secret Law has not regulated in detail the act of prohibiting the sale of products resulting from trade secret infringement. Therefore, the purpose of this research is to analyse the reasons for the urgency of regulating the act of prohibiting the sale of products resulting from violations of Trade Secrets based on the Trade Secrets Act, and to explore the regulation of temporary determination of the sale of products resulting from violations of Trade Secrets based on the Trade Secrets Act and Directive (EU) 2016/943. This research uses normative law and comparative law methods with descriptive analytical research specifications. The research was conducted by comparing the laws. The data collection technique used is literature review. Based on the results of the research, it is concluded that the provisions of the Trade Secrets Law regarding injunction in Article 11 are still not detailed enough to provide legal certainty. This is different from the case of Directive (EU) 2016/943, which has regulated the provisions of interim injunction quite comprehensively. In this case, Indonesia can use Directive (EU) 2016/943 as one of the references to complete the provisions of the Indonesian Trade Secrets Law.

One Patent in Respect of One Inventive Concept: Delhi High Court Denies Interim Injunction to Boehringer in Respect of Linagliptin, Holds Its Patent to be Vulnerable to Revocation

One Patent in Respect of One Inventive Concept: Delhi High Court Denies Interim Injunction to Boehringer in Respect of Linagliptin, Holds Its Patent to be Vulnerable to Revocation

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH v SERVIER LABORATORIES LTD

H1 Patents — European patents — Pharmaceuticals — Generic products — Economic torts — Unlawful means — Strike out application — Necessary elements of the tort — Whether the unlawful means had to interfere with claimant’s liberty to deal with third party against whom the unlawful act relied upon had been committed — Invalid patents — Proceedings for patent infringement — Interim injunctions — Market entry of third party generic product delayed — Prices thereby maintained — Patent later invalidated — Claim struck out at first instance and decision upheld by Court of Appeal — Appeal to Supreme Court

DR REDDY’S LABORATORIES (UK) LTD v WARNER-LAMBERT CO LLC

H1 Patents — European patents — Pharmaceuticals — Multi-party litigation — Interim injunctions and interim undertakings — Cross-undertakings in damages — Threats — Relevant patent claims held invalid — Assessment of damages — Preliminary issues — Counterfactual assumptions

Annotations (TCC Art.1010/B.1 and TCC Art.1011/B.1) Given in the Cases Creating a Change in the Deed and the Results of the Annotations

Uygulamada taşınmazlara yönelik olarak açılan davalarda, mahkemelerce “davalıdır şerhi” adı altında tapu siciline şerh verdirilmekte; hatta teknik anlamda şerh tabirine rağmen, beyanlar hanesine yazıldığı görülmektedir. Türk Medeni Kanun (TMK) sistematiği ile uyumlu olmayan bu uygulama, Yargıtay kararlarına dayalı oluşmuştur. Benzer sorun “tapu iptal ve tescil davaları” terimiyle ilgili olarak da bulunmaktadır. Bu ifade Türk Medeni Kanununda geçmediği gibi, doktrindeki temel eserlerde de bu yönde bir kullanım bulunmaz. Hal böyle olmasına rağmen, uygulamanın yarattığı bu tabir, uyap sistemine dahi girmiştir. Çalışmanın konusu, yargı kararlarında, Medeni Kanunda yer alan ve farklı işlevlere sahip iki şerhin, tek bir şerh gibi anılmasına ilişkin yanlışlığın giderilmesini hedeflemektedir. Bu iki şerhin verildiği davalara ilişkin olarak da ayrım yapmayan yargı kararları, bu davalarda verilen şerh konusunda ayrım yapmamaktadır. Oysa TMK m.1010/b.1’de yer alan şerh alacak hakkına dayalı açılan bir davada, kişisel nitelikteki bu hakkı üçüncü kişilere karşı koruma altına alırken, TMK m.1011/b.1’de düzenlenen şerh davacının iddia ettiği ayni hakkın, iyiniyetli üçüncü kişiler tarafından kanunen kazanılmasına engel olur. Çalışmada bu iki ayrıma dayalı sonuçlar ortaya konulmaktadır. Ayrıca Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu uyarınca verilen ihtiyati tedbirlerle de söz konusu şerhlerin arasındaki fark tespit edilmektedir

Consequences of the CJEU’s Bayer v Richter decision

The decision Bayer v Richter of the CJEU has consequences for the national court practice of the EU Member States on the liability of the patent proprietor for damages in case an interim injunction is lifted due to the revocation of the patent. An in-depth analysis of the decision seems necessary. The practice of the European Union (EU) Member States on the liability for damages of a patent proprietor who has obtained an interim injunction which is then lifted due to the revocation of the patent continues to differ,1 despite Article 50(7) of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, which is binding on all these states, and despite Article 9(7) of Directive 2004/48/EC (Enforcement Directive), which is also binding on these states. Two examples of differences suffice here. In ‘Germany’, if an injunction based on a patent is lifted because the patent has been revoked, the claimant is obliged under Section 945 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compensate the defendant for the damage he suffers as a result of the enforcement of the injunction. The provision does not contain any requirement of considering the applicant’s conduct (fault) or that of the respondent (contributory negligence2). According to court practice, the provision in principle does not apply if the reason justifying the procedural measure subsequently ceases to exist.3 However, since the revocation (Art. 138 European Patent Convention (EPC), Sec. 64 (1) Patent Act) has retroactive effect, it is consistently held in case law,4 against objections raised by considerable parts of the literature on procedural law,5 that the claimant is liable for damages under Sec. 945 ZPO irrespective of the foreseeability of the destruction, namely with regard to the entire damage caused by enforcement (‘strict liability’). The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decision Bayer v Richter,6 analysed below, gives reason to reconsider this court practice.

NEURIM PHARMACEUTICALS (1991) LTD v GENERICS UK LTD (T/A MYLAN)

Abstract H1 Patents — European patents — Pharmaceuticals — Interim injunctions — Proposed generic launch — Expedited trial — Assessment of adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — Clearing the path — Appeal to Court of Appeal

Progress Over Time: Significant Changes in the Hungarian Patent Act and the Consequences Thereof

Abstract The Hungarian Parliament recently adopted an amendment to the Hungarian Patent Act (HPA),1 introducing significant changes to the Hungarian patent system from 18 November 2021 and 1 January 2022. These changes affect the bifurcation system, the Bolar exemption and interim injunctions.

Sweden ∙ NASDAQ Abandons Plans to Trade Shares Listed on a Rival Market Place Following an Interim Injunction by the Swedish Competition Authority

Sweden ∙ NASDAQ Abandons Plans to Trade Shares Listed on a Rival Market Place Following an Interim Injunction by the Swedish Competition Authority

The Control of Administrative Inaction in the Context of the COVID-19 Health Emergency in France: an Inadequate Response from the Interim Relief Judge?

Interim remedies before administrative courts are an essential tool for the protection of individuals' fundamental rights in the French legal system. The months of Covid-19 health crisis have given the French administrative courts the opportunity to develop their role when using the so-called 'fundamental rights interim remedy'. In this context, the use of the power of injunction in the context of the fundamental rights interim remedy is not limited to a purely technical dimension. It takes place in a political context and reflects the capacity of the administrative courts, and especially of the Council of State, to play the role of a counter-power vis-à-vis the executive power. This article examines the decisions of the Council of State adopted since 16 March 2020, following fundamental rights interim remedies whose purpose was to request an injunction. It analyses how the fundamental rights interim remedy can be a means of remedying administrative inaction and, on the basis of the analysis of the cases where the requests for interim injunctions have been rejected, it draws lessons on the role of the French administrative courts in the context of the health crisis.

NAPP PHARMACEUTICAL HOLDINGS LTD v DR REDDY’S LABORATORIES (UK) LTD

Abstract H1 Patents – European Patents – Interim injunctions – Cross-undertaking in damages –Application to fortify cross-undertaking after injunction discharged – Jurisdiction – Discretion

О мерах процессуального принуждения, связанных с ограничением имущественных прав

The article considers the sufficiency of coercive procedural measures available in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation related to the restriction of property rights and aimed at compensating for the damage caused by the crime and ensuring the enforcement of the court’s sentence in terms of property penalties and possible confiscation of property. In order to maintain a balance between the interests of the parties to the prosecution and that of the defence and to enhance the effectiveness of the work of the preliminary investigation agencies in property searching and locating with a view to its further arrest, it is proposed that a new coercive procedural measure be introduced in the form of an interim injunction of the disposal of property.

The dilution of interim anti-arbitration injunctions in Devi Resources: pro-enforcement approach gone too far?

Abstract Keeping in line with India’s ‘pro-arbitration’ approach, the Calcutta High Court in Devi Resources Ltd v Ambo Exports Ltd recently refused an application seeking to restrain the enforcement of an arbitral award on the ground that the award was passed in violation of an interim anti-arbitration injunction. The Court based its reasoning on the fact that the injunction was ultimately vacated at a later stage (after the award had already been passed), and once such interim injunction has been set aside, it would imply that the injunction had never been passed. On the face of it, this decision seems to be an illustration of Indian courts’ awareness of the importance of minimal intervention in the scheme of promoting international commercial arbitrations. However, on a closer look, one finds that the court’s decision does more harm than good by legitimizing the violation of an anti-arbitration injunction without any consequences. The present article examines the ruling in Devi Resources. It also explores the policy implications of the Court’s decision on the efficacy of anti-arbitration injunctions.

Interim injunctions and working of patents: A short note from India

The article looks at how jurisprudence has evolved in Indian courts on granting or refusing injunctions to patentees, especially when such patentees are not working/commercially using their patented product in India. The author also presents his views on the recent Eisai v. Dr Reddys case.

Application for an interim injunction in UK patent infringement dispute rejected

Application for an interim injunction in UK patent infringement dispute rejected

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH v SERVIER LABORATORIES LTD

Abstract H1 Patents – European patents - Pharmaceuticals – Generic products – Economic torts – Unlawful means – Strike out application – Necessary elements of the tort – Whether the unlawful means relied upon had to interfere with claimant’s liberty to deal with third party against whom the unlawful act relied upon had been committed – Invalid patents – Proceedings for patent infringement – Interim injunctions – Market entry of third party generic product delayed – Prices thereby maintained – Patent later invalidated – Claim struck out at first instance – Appeal to Court of Appeal

The Hong Kong Occupy Injunction Cases

Abstract In September 2014, the deadlock over election reforms in Hong Kong sparked off a mass civil disobedience occupy movement. This political dispute eventually reached the legal arena after the filing of injunction applications before the courts of Hong Kong to clear the protest sites. This article aims to discuss the courts’ approach towards the adjudication of these injunction cases. In particular, this article will review: (a) the appropriateness of the scope of the interim injunctions granted to protect the plaintiff’s personal rights under the tort of public nuisance; (b) the function of the police in implementing the injunction orders; (c) the position the courts should adopt in defending individual rights of the plaintiffs if a similar remedy is already available under the statute; and (d) the way courts should reconcile competing claims and protect both the unidentified protestors’ human rights and the private rights of the plaintiffs. The article maintains that the injunction cases have set rather dangerous precedents regarding the protection of fundamental rights in Hong Kong in cases of public order involving protection of private rights. The same analysis leads to the conclusion that in a democratic society, the courts have a duty to find the balance between the protection of fundamental human rights and private rights under tort of nuisance, while also observing significant procedural rules.

The erring trends shaping Indian FRAND case law: towards a new approach

Smiriti Tripathi is a student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi. FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) litigation, unlike every other traditional litigation, requires some clarity on the background. It is important to understand what standard essential patents (SEPs) are, how they differ from regular patents or even compulsory licences and why they are so important. And most importantly, it is vital to understand the standing of relevant standard-setting organizations (SSOs), their functioning, policies, approach and their limitations. With a brief review of such concepts, I explain why the determination of royalty rates is a tricky concept in FRAND and that they should be left to technical bodies like the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Then again, there is no written word of law which prohibits the courts from adjudicating upon royalty rates. It is advisable, however, if the same is referred to the technical bodies instead, which becomes more imperative from the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s act of granting temporary injunction in SEP litigation unlike any other leading court, thus influencing the ongoing negotiation process between the parties. Furthermore the Competition Commission of India is the only anti-trust body which has assumed jurisdiction in a FRAND matter. I have provided a number of recommendations and the approach that should have been followed by the Hon’ble High Court and the Competition Commission of India. With issues like non-disclosure agreements, double dipping, issuance of interim injunctions and rates, it might not be possible to ascertain the direction in which Indian jurisprudence is moving, but one thing is sure: FRAND litigation is under the spotlight!

Patents Court maintains injunction protecting Warner-Lambert’s second medical use patent for pregabalin

In the latest decision in the long-running ‘pregabalin’ litigation, the Patents Court has refused to vary an interim injunction restraining Sandoz from proceeding with the launch of its full label generic pregabalin product, thereby maintaining protection for Warner-Lambert’s second medical use patent.

Balancing the right to a private life and freedom of expression: is pre-publication notification the way forward?

ABSTRACTThis article considers whether newspapers should be under a requirement to notify subjects of stories which contain private information. The events of Mosley v UK provide the basis of discussion. The arguments for and against a pre-notification requirement are critically examined and the practical considerations of implementing the requirement are analysed. A few solutions to the problem of protecting privacy when newspapers want to publish private information are then discussed. It is considered that pre-publication notification is necessary to ensure that the privacy rights of subjects of stories are protected. Pre-publication notification will allow individuals to apply for interim injunctions and ensure that the story remains private. However, given the practical problems involved in implementing such a requirement, it is concluded that a pre-publication notification requirement will not be introduced for the foreseeable future.