The public interest and patent injunctions: Evalve v Edwards Lifescience [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat)

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2020-09-01 DOI:10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.06
Phillip Johnson
{"title":"The public interest and patent injunctions: Evalve v Edwards Lifescience [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat)","authors":"Phillip Johnson","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is usual for a court to grant a final injunction after a finding of patent infringement. There has been some doubt about how this applied when the patents covered essential medical products. In Evalve v Edwards Lifescience [2010] EWHC 513 (Pat), the court explored the role of the public interest in withholding injunctions and awarding damages in lieu. It construed the public interest narrowly in part due to the existence of compulsory licences. This discussion explores the court’s reasoning and suggests that an even greater link with compulsory licences should be adopted.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":"10 1","pages":"392-400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2020.03.06","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is usual for a court to grant a final injunction after a finding of patent infringement. There has been some doubt about how this applied when the patents covered essential medical products. In Evalve v Edwards Lifescience [2010] EWHC 513 (Pat), the court explored the role of the public interest in withholding injunctions and awarding damages in lieu. It construed the public interest narrowly in part due to the existence of compulsory licences. This discussion explores the court’s reasoning and suggests that an even greater link with compulsory licences should be adopted.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专利禁令与公共利益:valve v Edwards Lifescience [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat)
通常情况下,法院在认定专利侵权后会发布最终禁令。当专利涵盖基本医疗产品时,这一点是如何适用的,一直存在一些疑问。在Evalve诉Edwards Lifescience[2010]EWHC 513(Pat)一案中,法院探讨了公共利益在扣留禁令和判给损害赔偿金方面的作用。它狭隘地解释了公众利益,部分原因是强制性许可证的存在。本次讨论探讨了法院的推理,并建议应与强制许可证建立更大的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Pharmaceutical corporate power, traditional medical knowledge, and intellectual property governance in China Book review: Karine E Peschard, Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 2022) 208 pp. Judicial and legislative approaches to employee patent rights in France Page against the machine: the death of the author and the rise of the producer? The universe identification and sampling design of consumer surveys in trade mark lawsuits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1