Patent

The claimant owned a patent for a drug for pain, which also had non-patented indications. The defendants marketed a product for those non-patented indications. The judge refused the claimant mandatory interim injunctive relief for direct and indirect patent infringement, and struck out its claim of indirect infringement. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in upholding the judge’s refusal of injunctive relief held that, on the application of the proper test, the claimant had an arguable case on direct infringement, but that the judge had not erred in his assessment of the balance of justice. However, the indirect infringement claim would be allowed to go to trial.