Injunctions and Restraining Orders in Patent Infringement Cases

An order by a court that allows someone to do something or avoid doing something is an injunction. Outside the patent sense, in cases involving intrusions on their privacy or property, individuals also request injunctions. You may be able to get an injunction from the judge that orders the defendant to stop the infringement if you can prove that the defendant probably infringed on a legitimate patent that you own. An injunction is not a substitute for damages, and you can only deserve compensation for your losses during the infringement period.

Injunctions and Restraining Orders in Patent Infringement Cases

Introduction

An order by a court that allows someone to do something or avoid doing something is an injunction. Outside the patent sense, in cases involving intrusions on their privacy or property, individuals also request injunctions. You may be able to get an injunction from the judge that orders the defendant to stop the infringement if you can prove that the defendant probably infringed on a legitimate patent that you own. An injunction is not a substitute for damages, and you can only deserve compensation for your losses during the infringement period.

Damages will not, however, be the only recourse for a patent proprietor against an infringer. You will worry that if your case goes into a full trial, you will not get justice for years, during which time the infringer will continue to benefit from your efforts. To cope with this case, preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders are intended.

Getting a Pre-Liminary Injunction

The perfect solution is a permanent injunction, but it can take a long time to obtain. Before the court imposes a permanent injunction, you will need to win on the grounds of your infringement action. In cases that are time-sensitive, often a temporary injunction is necessary so that the conduct of the defendant could cause significant damage before the case is completely litigated in a courtroom.

It does not entail a full settlement of the case to get this injunction, but it does need to prove that the plaintiff is likely to win. Preliminary injunctions typically require briefs provided by both parties and a court hearing.

Temporary Restraining Order

A patent owner may consider seeking a temporary restraining order as an alternative (TRO). Under Federal Law of Civil Procedure 65(b), these may be granted without giving the infringer notice, which significantly streamlines the process. In order to establish that the infringement would cause immediate and irreparable damages, the patent owner would need to show particular evidence before the court would have an opportunity to obtain briefs from both sides and hold a hearing. Although Rule 65(b) does not specifically require a plaintiff to demonstrate that they are likely to win, this kind of demonstration would probably need to be made.

Remembering the "temporary" part of a temporary restraining order is crucial. A permanent solution would not have a TRO. Usually, it only stays in place until both sides present their views at a hearing. A judge will determine at that point whether to issue a preliminary injunction or simply allow the case to go forward to trial. In a patent infringement proceeding, having a TRO is far from automatic, and an attorney will be able to advise you about whether it would be acceptable in your case. (Often, if an argument is good enough for a judge to grant a TRO, instead of going formally through the courts, the claimant may negotiate a favorable settlement with the defendant.)

In the case of David V. Radack

An injunction to prohibit potential infringement by the defendant is one of the recourses available to a patent owner ('plaintiff') in the United States against an alleged infringer ('defendant') of the patent. A strong right of the plaintiff that can be issued by the federal district court judge who is hearing the case is the availability of an injunction.

In general, in a patent-infringement case, two kinds of injunctions are available. The first is a preliminary injunction, which is issued very early in a legal case for patent infringement, as its name suggests, which forbids the defendant from violating the patent during the ongoing litigation process.

Irreparable damage is always assumed because the claimant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the patent is infringed by the defendant and that the patent is legitimate. One argument that has been advanced for the assumption of irreparable harm is that a patent has a limited existence and it will inflict irreparable harm on the plaintiff to allow the defendant to continue violating the patent during long patent-infringement litigation. However, courts have refused preliminary injunctions to claimants on the basis that the defendant's paying damages to the plaintiff can be remedied by patent infringement until the infringement has been found in a courtroom.

Injunction and appeal

This SJ experiment was short-lived when the same judge in the case of Natco Pharma Ltd vs Bristol Myers Squibb passed a similar order. Nacto Pharma (defendant) was diligent in this case to appeal the grant of the temporary injunction, unlike Sterlite, which was an ex-party ruling, and they had filed a caveat. The appeal was favored because the same Judge issued the temporary injunction on the same rationale as in Sterlite. The DB Delhi High Court's appeal fell heavily on the Sterlite case's logic and stayed the award of an injunction in the Natco case.

Conclusion

As the preliminary injunction law continues to consolidate, it is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain temporary injunctions, especially at the level of the first court. In patent cases, interim injunctive relief, especially in the case of pharmaceutical block buster’s, is challenged in the public interest in order to challenge the automatic grant of the injunction. For those defending against patent infringement claims, this seems to be a relief. The silver lining for patentees, however, is that the award of permanent injunctive relief is almost automatic when the courts are convinced that the patent is legitimate and infringed.


 


By -

Saumya Krishnani