It is a known fact that Indian courts, in relation to IPR infringement cases, are prone to granting interim/ex-parte interim injunctions for putting an immediate bar over such an alleged violation. However, it has to be taken into account that, as happened in a plethora of cases, the party against whom such an injunction is issued did not actually violate the Intellectual Property Rights of the other party. In such cases, despite the courts providing for due compensation, a party may suffer harms, which might be irreparable, due to the earlier issued interim injunction. In relation to this, the author aims to analyze the unpopular opinion of doing away with interim injunction and submit its own opinions in relation to the same.
There have been judgements majorly pronounced by Justice Katju and Justice Bhat, wherein, they have provided that the approach of granting an interim injunction at the preliminary stage might serve as an impediment to the final justice, and henceforth, instead of going forward with interim injunctions every time, the courts should try resolving the whole dispute within the shortest period of time possible. Furthermore, Justice Katju also opinionated that the remedy of interim injunctions should completely be done away with and an approach to resolve IP dispute within months should be adopted. The author does agree to Justice Katju's opinion, but only to a certain extent.
In author's opinion, completely doing away with the remedy of granting interim injunctions would not be a right step as it can lead to a violation of TRIPS agreement which does provide for interim injunctions, and therefore, the author contend that this phase elimination should not be done on a regular and straightforward basis, when a prima facie assessment can be carried out easily, but only be done when the court is convinced that a decent prima facie assessment of the matter is almost impossible.
In view of the relative inexperience of the Indian courts with IP infringements, the prima facie strength or weakness of the complainant's case is often very difficult to assess. There is, therefore, a reason why courts must not grant temporary judgments where patent infringements law suits raise credible, complicated problems concerning infringement and validity. They should move directly to the stage of the trial and assess the merits of a permanent injunction or otherwise.
Such trials, however, should be disposed promptly, inter alia, with the discouragement of adjournments, the insistence on fewer hearings and more pleadings, and the appointment of highly neutral technical experts who can assess technology and the scope of claims more objectively than either side.
In suit requesting the alleged IPR infringement, the court should not grant a provisional order in cases where either the validity of the IP or the infringement fact is "credibly" challenged. Instead, for a final decision, the case should go to the trial. This is the result of the fact that the interim decision scrutinizes the fate of the dispute in most IP cases. Any incorrect decision at this point has enormous consequences which require courts to try and achieve the right outcome in the interim phase.
Furthermore, it is also virtually unfeasible to make the correct evaluation, normally available in a short window during an interim phase, in a complicated IP dispute. The author recommend, therefore, that Indian courts shorten the interim stage and move directly to the proceedings.
A logical corollary of the above proposition is that, if the defendant defends himself intrinsically, by either fostering a frivolous challenge of validity or claiming that the defendant is not infringed without giving reason, the Court should hold that a case of prima facie was established in favor of the plaintiff. The rare exception to the norm is this situation.
There is still no automatic granting of an interim injunction in the above-mentioned rare cases where a court can get a quick prima facie view of the merits in favor of the plaintiff. Rather, the courts have to emphasize that the plaintiff is favored by other factors, such as irreparable damage, balance of convenience and public interest.
To conclude, Indian courts, with time, should evolve the concept of interim injunctions and realize that even granting a simple interim injunction might cause substantial losses to companies. Since a lot of these companies these days are listed in stock markets, one decision is favor or against can change the public outlook and fluctuate their market to a large extent. With this, the author is of the opinion that while respecting the rights of a company whose IP Rights have been violated, the courts should consider the remedy of interim injunction as an exception and incline towards coming to a final decision in the relation to IP matters at the earliest.
Critical Analysis Of The Practice Of Regular Granting Of Interim Injunctions
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
