“Interim Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases” was the title of the lecture given last night at the Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, under the auspices of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies. The IPKat was in attendance. Speakers Simon Cohen and Nigel Stoate, both litigators with Taylor Wessing, gave a sparkling review of current British practice and then contrasted it with the pre-trial relief available in France, Germany and Belgium. Starting from the American Cyanamid principles, Simon Cohen explained how the prime consideration was whether the irreparable loss suffered by the IP owner if interim relief were not granted was greater or less than the irreparable loss suffered by an alleged infringer if that relief were granted. He described the “clear the path” approach, adumbrated by Mr Justice Jacob (as he then was) and subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal in SmithKline v Apotex . By this approach, the fact that the defendant knew the claimant had a hostile intellectual property right but didn’t try to remove it (through revocation or cancellation proceedings) or escape it (through a declaration of non-infringement) was itself a ground upon which interim relief should be granted. Nigel Stoate then reviewed practice in other jurisdictions, notably saisie-contrefaçon in France and saisie description in Belgium. The disappointingly small audience of brave souls who had fought their way through a blizzard to reach the lecture were then treated to a short but pleasurable Q and A session, from which emerged the consideration that interim injunctions seem to be sought less frequently these days now that applications for summary judgment have become more popular.

The IPKat was most interested in the "clearing the path" approach to interim relief, but he noticed that it only seems to have been employed in the UK in patent cases. Would this doctrine be of (i) applicability and (ii) utility in interim relief proceedings involving other IP rights, especially copyright and trade marks, he wonders?

In need of instant relief? Click here, here and here
Clear the path here

STOP -- FOR THE TIME BEING -- IN THE NAME OF THE LAW STOP  --  FOR THE TIME BEING  -- IN THE NAME OF THE LAW Reviewed by Jeremy and Ilanah on Thursday, January 29, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.