A COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF INTERIM MEASURES IN PATENT DISPUTES IN INDIA WITH REGARD TO INJUNCTIONS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AUTHORS – ASTITWA RAJ & GAUTAM SINHA
STUDENTS AT WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES
BEST CITATION – ASTITWA RAJ & GAUTAM SINHA, A COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF INTERIM MEASURES IN PATENT DISPUTES IN INDIA WITH REGARD TO INJUNCTIONS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, ILE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CORPORATE LAW REVIEW, 4 (1) OF 2025, PG. 31-40, APIS – 3920 – 0008 | ISSN – 2583–6153.
“Where a patent is demonstrably infringed, swift and effective intervention may be necessary to prevent irreparable harm. Interim measures, such as injunctions, can provide this critical protection.”[1]
To grant injunctions it should be set in such manner that it strikes an adequate balance between the patentee’s interests which ensures prompt and successful enforcement of her rights and the public interest to avoid erroneous injunctions which lead to a situation where the patent proves to be invalid or not infringed post rial. The consequences of these erroneous junctions not only hurt the rivals against whom they are awarded but also becomes a compulsion for the consumers to pay a monopolistic price for the duration of the injunction or restraining order. As per the US & UK case law, it states that the issuing of a temporary restraining order (or injunction) in India is based on “equity”. In the case of N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp[2] , the supreme court ruled that Injunctions are equitable remedies that are founded on equitable principles. The criteria is as follows :
- There must be a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff;
- The plaintiff will suffer irreparable damages if the defendant is not restrained;
- The balance of convenience should favour the plaintiff;
- The injunction granted to the plaintiff should not be contrary to the public interest.
So far the abovementioned criteria has not been well explained and lacks conceptual clarity by Indian courts. To understand , what is the right criteria to establish a prima facie case , the Indian supreme court has illustrated the prima facie standard in one of the trademark and copyright infringement case where the court held that ; “This does not mean, however, it is the court who has to examine the facts of the case in detailed fashion and should anticipate or prejudice the verdict that may be pronounced after the suit is heard, or the aggrieved party should make a case that would entitle him to relief in any event at the hearing.”[3] In the case of Uniply Indus. Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd.2001, a trademark judgment where the supreme court referred to a “strong prima facie.”[4]
[1] “Barton & Armstrong,. Intellectual Property Law in Australia (5th ed.). LexisNexis Butterworths, p. 892 (2013)”
[2] “N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp., (1996) 5 SCC 714.”
[3] “Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machs. Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448, ¶463”.
[4] (2001) 5 SCC 95.