Injunction refused for restraint of infringement




In a decision on patent infringement by the IP Court in March this year, the patentee was awarded the claimed damages but denied an injunction.

The Court's reasons for denial were two fold.

First, the right to remove infringement under article 106.1 of the Patent Law is granted only when a patentee's full realisation of its patent right is hampered by a third party's illegal act and the patentee has no obligation to tolerate such an act. The provision should be interpreted to mean that a patentee only has the right to remove infringement when infringement has occurred and continues to occur. Past infringement involves damages awards only.

Second, the defendant admitted that the products concerned had been sold as trial samples but argued that it had modified them, denying any act of making, selling and offering for sale the products in Taiwan. The plaintiff, on the other hand, failed to prove that such acts were still occurring at the close of the oral hearing. Therefore, it could not be held that there is still actual infringement of the patent right. In view of the interpretation of article 106.1, the plaintiff's request that the defendant cease acts of infringement is baseless.

The Court's interpretation of the law is disputable. According to the Patent Law, when the right to a patent has been infringed, the patentee may request removal of infringement, and when there is a likelihood of infringement, the seek to restrain infringement. In this case, the plaintiff may at least request an injunction on the ground that the defendant may infringe the patent again in the future. Alternatively, the plaintiff may request that the defendant provide a letter of undertaking not to infringe the patent or that such an undertaking be attached to the files of the court. If the defendant refuses to provide one, the plaintiff will then be in a better position to request an injunction.

Frank FJ Liu

Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices
7th Floor, No. 248, Section 3
Nanking East Road
Taipei 105-45
Taiwan, ROC
Tel: +886 2 2775 1823
Fax: +886 2 2731 6377
siiplo@mail.saint-island.com.tw
www.saint-island.com.tw




More from the Managing IP blog


June 2013

The Madrid Protocol comes of age

India’s accession means the Madrid Protocol now covers more than two-thirds of the world’s population. Is this the tipping-point for the international trade mark system, and what reforms are needed? Emma Barraclough, James Nurton and Alli Pyrah report



Most read articles

Poll

Following the US Apple v Samsung trial, do you think juries should play a role in patent cases?







Supplements