Melbourne Office - PO Box 452, COLLINS STREET WEST VIC 8007 AUSTRALIA
Sydney Office - GPO Box 2506, SYDNEY NSW 2001 AUSTRALIA
Telephone: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3709 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 2600
Facsimile: Melbourne Office - +61 3 9629 3217 Sydney Office - +61 2 9233 3044
Email:adr@arbitrator.com.au Internet:http://www.arbitrator.com.au

User Tools

Site Tools


injunctions

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
injunctions [2013/01/06 16:46]
steve [2011]
injunctions [2017/07/30 18:00] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Injunctions ====== ====== Injunctions ======
   * [[http://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Injunction|Generally]]   * [[http://​en.wikipedia.org/​wiki/​Injunction|Generally]]
-====== Test ====== +===== Test ===== 
-As set out by the High Court in [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2006/​46.html|Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill]] (((2006) 227 CLR 57)), there are two main inquiries to undertake in determining whether to grant an interim injunction(( The High Court followed [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1968/​1.html|Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd]] [1968] HCA 1)).+As set out by the High Court in [[Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill|Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O’Neill]] (((2006) 227 CLR 57)), there are two main inquiries to undertake in determining whether to grant an interim injunction(( The High Court followed [[Beecham Group v Bristol Laboratories|Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd]] [1968] HCA 1)).
   * The first is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is a probability that at the trial of the action the plaintiff will be held entitled to relief...   * The first is whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, in the sense that if the evidence remains as it is there is a probability that at the trial of the action the plaintiff will be held entitled to relief...
   * The second inquiry is… whether the inconvenience or injury which the plaintiff would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the injury which the defendant would suffer if an injunction were granted.   * The second inquiry is… whether the inconvenience or injury which the plaintiff would be likely to suffer if an injunction were refused outweighs or is outweighed by the injury which the defendant would suffer if an injunction were granted.
Line 10: Line 10:
   * This is particularly relevant where the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction would, in effect, dispose of the action finally in favour of whichever party succeeds on that application.   * This is particularly relevant where the grant or refusal of an interlocutory injunction would, in effect, dispose of the action finally in favour of whichever party succeeds on that application.
 See also See also
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1980/​44.html|Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd ("​Defence Papers case"​)]] (([1980] HCA 44; (1980) 147 CLR 39)) +  * [[Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons|Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd ("​Defence Papers case"​)]] (([1980] HCA 44; (1980) 147 CLR 39)) 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​cgi-bin/​sinodisp/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​2001/​63.html|ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd]] (([2001] HCA 63; 208 CLR 199; 185 ALR 1; 76 ALJR 1))+  * [[ABC v Lenah Game Meats|ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd]] (([2001] HCA 63; 208 CLR 199; 185 ALR 1; 76 ALJR 1))
  
-====== Sample ITT test evaluation ​====== +===== Sample ITT test evaluation ===== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2011/​156.html|Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc.]](([2011] FCAFC 156)) Interlocutory Injunction overturned+  * [[Samsung Electronics v Apple|Samsung Electronics Co. Limited v Apple Inc.]](([2011] FCAFC 156)) Interlocutory Injunction overturned
     * ... Apple submitted that her Honour undertook the necessary evaluation of the strength of Apple’s case of infringement and, indeed, Samsung’s case for invalidity, and took the results of her evaluation into account both when determining whether Apple had established a sufficient prima facie case of infringement and in determining where the balance of convenience and justice lay.      * ... Apple submitted that her Honour undertook the necessary evaluation of the strength of Apple’s case of infringement and, indeed, Samsung’s case for invalidity, and took the results of her evaluation into account both when determining whether Apple had established a sufficient prima facie case of infringement and in determining where the balance of convenience and justice lay. 
     * Apple pointed to a number of references in her Honour’s reasons to the expression “prima facie case” as indicating that her Honour had conducted the requisite evaluation. ​     * Apple pointed to a number of references in her Honour’s reasons to the expression “prima facie case” as indicating that her Honour had conducted the requisite evaluation. ​
Line 33: Line 33:
     * We are not persuaded that there is any material of importance relevant to the exercise of discretion which has not been drawn to our attention. ​     * We are not persuaded that there is any material of importance relevant to the exercise of discretion which has not been drawn to our attention. ​
     * We will, therefore, proceed to exercise the discretion ourselves.     * We will, therefore, proceed to exercise the discretion ourselves.
-    * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2011/​1164.html|Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited]] (([2011] FCA 1164)) - Patent Infringement - Interlocutory Injunction - Apple ipad cf Samsung galaxy 10.1+    * [[Samsung Electronics v Apple|Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited]] (([2011] FCA 1164)) - Patent Infringement - Interlocutory Injunction - Apple ipad cf Samsung galaxy 10.1
  
-====== Price ======+===== Price =====
   * Typically the granting of an injunction is subject to giving an [[undertaking for damages]].   * Typically the granting of an injunction is subject to giving an [[undertaking for damages]].
  
  
-====== Patent Infringement Injunction Issues ​====== +===== Patent Infringement Injunction Issues ===== 
-===== 2011 ===== +==== 2011 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2011/​1164.html|Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited]] (([2011] FCA 1164))+  * [[Samsung Electronics v Apple|Apple Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co. Limited]] (([2011] FCA 1164))
     * [[Apple claims in dispute]]     * [[Apple claims in dispute]]
     * Our prediction is that Apple will be found successful at trial but that decision will be set aside on appeal. ​ Alternatively,​ a cross licensing settlement is highly likely. ​ Carefully watch the US litigation for a key indication.     * Our prediction is that Apple will be found successful at trial but that decision will be set aside on appeal. ​ Alternatively,​ a cross licensing settlement is highly likely. ​ Carefully watch the US litigation for a key indication.
-===== 2009 ===== +==== 2009 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2009/​945.html|Alphapharm Pty Ltd v Wyeth]] ​ (( (2009) 82 IPR 71 )) injunction granted +  * [[Alphapharm v Wyeth|Alphapharm Pty Ltd v Wyeth]] (((2009) 82 IPR 71)) injunction granted 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2009/​595.html|Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth]] (([2009] FCA 595)) +  * [[Sigma Pharmaceuticals Australia v Wyeth|Sigma Pharmaceuticals (Australia) Pty Ltd v Wyeth]] (([2009] FCA 595)) 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2009/​630.html|Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd]] (([2009] FCA 630)) +  * [[Smith & Nephew v Wake Forest University Health Sciences|Wake Forest University Health Sciences v Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd]] (([2009] FCA 630)) 
-    * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCAFC/​2009/​142.html|Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences]] (([2009] FCAFC 142)) +    * [[Smith & Nephew v Wake Forest University Health Sciences|Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences]] (([2009] FCAFC 142)) 
-===== 2008 ===== +==== 2008 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2008/​1498.html|Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents]] ​ (([2008] FCA 1498))+  * [[Interpharma v Commissioner of Patents|Interpharma Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents]] (([2008] FCA 1498))
     * In a patent case, the fact of registration constitutes prima facie evidence of validity... It has been said that it is for the respondent to show that want of validity is a triable question... This seems clear enough, but, in my opinion, the analysis needs to be taken a step further. Is it sufficient that the respondent does show a triable question on validity? In my view, if that is as far as the respondent goes, then, assuming always that the applicant has shown a triable issue on infringement,​ absent questions of validity, the conclusion would remain that the latter had a triable question. That is to say, as a matter of analysis, unless the case for invalidity is sufficiently strong (at the provisional level) to qualify the conclusion that, overall, the applicant has a serious question, or a probability of success, the court should move to consider the adequacy of damages, the balance of convenience and other discretionary matters. It is the applicant’s title to interlocutory relief which is under consideration,​ and the bottom-line question, as it were, is whether the applicant has a serious question, or a probability of success, not whether the respondent does in relation to some point of defence raised or foreshadowed. ​ ((Followed Apple, Sigma))     * In a patent case, the fact of registration constitutes prima facie evidence of validity... It has been said that it is for the respondent to show that want of validity is a triable question... This seems clear enough, but, in my opinion, the analysis needs to be taken a step further. Is it sufficient that the respondent does show a triable question on validity? In my view, if that is as far as the respondent goes, then, assuming always that the applicant has shown a triable issue on infringement,​ absent questions of validity, the conclusion would remain that the latter had a triable question. That is to say, as a matter of analysis, unless the case for invalidity is sufficiently strong (at the provisional level) to qualify the conclusion that, overall, the applicant has a serious question, or a probability of success, the court should move to consider the adequacy of damages, the balance of convenience and other discretionary matters. It is the applicant’s title to interlocutory relief which is under consideration,​ and the bottom-line question, as it were, is whether the applicant has a serious question, or a probability of success, not whether the respondent does in relation to some point of defence raised or foreshadowed. ​ ((Followed Apple, Sigma))
-===== 2007 ===== +==== 2007 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2007/​1485.html|GenRx Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis]] ​ (([2007] FCA 1485)) injunction granted +  * [[GenRx v Sanofi-Aventis|GenRx Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis]] (([2007] FCA 1485)) injunction granted 
-===== 2006 ===== +==== 2006 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2006/​1407.html|Merck & Co Inc v Genrx Pty Ltd]]  (( [2006] FCA 1407)) +  * [[Merck & Co v Genrx|Merck & Co Inc v Genrx Pty Ltd]] (([2006] FCA 1407)) 
-===== 2005 ===== +==== 2005 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2005/​1675.html|Pharmacia Italia S.p.A. v Interpharma Pty Ltd]] (([2005] FCA 1675)) +  * [[Pharmacia Italia v Interpharma|Pharmacia Italia S.p.A. v Interpharma Pty Ltd]] (([2005] FCA 1675)) 
-===== 1998 ===== +==== 1998 ==== 
-  * Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd (( (1988) 81 ALR 543)) +  * [[Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings|Martin Engineering Co v Trison Holdings Pty Ltd]] (((1988) 81 ALR 543)) 
-===== 1968 ===== +==== 1968 ==== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​HCA/​1968/​1.html|Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd]] (([1968] HCA 1)) +  * [[Beecham Group v Bristol Laboratories|Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd]] (([1968] HCA 1)) 
-====== Trade Mark Infringement Injunction Cases ====== +===== Trade Mark Infringement Injunction Cases ===== 
-  * [[http://​www.austlii.edu.au/​au/​cases/​cth/​FCA/​2004/​1335.html|Beecham Group PLC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd]] (([2004] FCA 1335))+  * [[Beecham Group v Colgate-Palmolive|Beecham Group PLC v Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd]] (([2004] FCA 1335))
  
  
  
  

  © White SW Computer Law 1994-2019. ABN 94 669 684 644. All Rights Reserved.
  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation
  This website is a guide only and should not be used as a substitute for proper legal advice.
  Readers should make their own enquiries and seek appropriate legal advice.
  For legal advice please email wcl@computerlaw.com.au