![IP-2024-000024 - [2024] EWHC 951 (IPEC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AacSvIO.png){kind=logo}
Stage 1: Serious issue to be tried?
Stage 1: Serious issue to be tried?
There was no dispute between the parties that there was a serious issue to be tried. In particular, it was accepted by the Defendant that the Claimant has an arguable case of infringement. The Defendant also submitted that it had a strong case of non-infringement and/or validity, but those will be substantive issues for trial in due course, along with infringement, and I say no more about them. This was not a case where either party suggested that I should take the merits of the case into account in considering whether or not to grant the injunction.
- Heading
- Miss Charlotte May KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
- Background
- Applicable Legal Principles
- Is the Claimant the proprietor of the Patent?
- Quality of the Defendant’s evidence
- Trial Listing
- Stage 1: Serious issue to be tried?
- Stage 2: Are damages an adequate remedy for the Claimant?
- Loss of Market Exclusivity
- Defendant’s alleged derogatory statements
- Price Depression
- Quantification of damage
- Stage 3: If not, are damages an adequate remedy for the Defendant?
- Lost sales of convoyed goods
- Reputational Damage
- Difficulty in enforcing a judgment in China for damages under the cross-undertaking
- Stage 4: If damages are not an adequate remedy for either side, where does the balance of convenience lie?
- Conclusions