American Cynamid Rules!

THE UNANIMITY WITH which Roche and Cipla agreed on the applicability of the American Cyanamid decision and the manner in which the same was applied by the Delhi High Court in the interlocutory stage of the infringement case, reaffirms our faith in the Cyanamid approach. We had earlier remarked here, in the context of the Bajaj-TVS case, on the courts' approach to granting interim injunctions. The Roche-Cipla order illustrates with great clarity on how the Cyanamid approach is to be applied. Unfortunately, we notice that the court did not make any determination on the 'adequacy of damages' which is a vital cog in the Cyanamid approach. My article analysing this issue titled "It's American Cyanamid again on patents vs access to medicines" appeared in today's DNA Money and the same can be read here.

Court's Approach in Granting Interim Injunctions

THE APPROACH FOLLOWED by the courts in granting or refusing interim injunctions has not been a consistent one, especially when the matter pertains to 'heavy' intellectual property cases, like the ones involving patents. That new technology can be mind-boggling seems to have bothered the judiciary which now spends considerable time (at the expense of other pending matters) hearing these heavy matters even at the interim stage. Such exclusive attention may be good for the litigants whose get undivided attention of the court in matters where their business interests are at stake. But from a systemic level, it portrays a sad state of affairs. My article in today's The Hindu Business Line brings forth the problems we will face if we follow the traditional approach of deciding a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable hardship (the three elements to be satisfied for the grant of an interim injunction) and proposes a more efficient, equitable and time-saving approach in granting injunction. The article is available here.