Abstract
The author argues that the standards governing the grant of an interim injunction must be reassessed in light of the growing importance of the interim injunction as a tool of resolving patent infringement litigation. He suggests that the standards applied in civil litigation generally are inappropriate because of four factors that qualitatively distinguish patent infringement litigation from civil litigation. The author proposes the acceptance of the model envisaged by Lord Diplock in American Cyanamid v. Ethicon as the appropriate model to govern injunctions in patent infringement litigation, and argues that a lower standard of prima facie case is more consistent with this qualitative distinction that patent infringement litigation undoubtedly requires Courts to make. In doing so, the author also traces the development of the law on Cyanamid in both Britain and India, and concludes that while the preponderance of authority favours Cyanamid, there is certainly room for an authoritative pronouncement to this effect.
Recommended Citation
Kumar, Ashutosh
(2008)
"Patent Protection through Interim Injunctions: Adding Sting to the Enforcement of Indian Patent Law,"
National Law School of India Review: Vol. 20:
Iss.
2, Article 6.
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol20/iss2/6
