Smithkline Beecham plc & Ors v. Genthon BV & Anor [2003] IEHC 623 (28 February 2003)

Smithkline Beecham plc & Ors v. Genthon BV & Anor [2003] IEHC 623 (28 February 2003)

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that damages would not be an adequate remedy for any loss suffered due to the defendants' alleged patent infringement between now and trial; therefore, the application for an interlocutory injunction was refused.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 623
Parties
Plaintiff: Smithkline Beecham plc; Plaintiff: Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Plaintiff: GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (Ireland) Ltd.; Defendant: Genthon B.V.; Defendant: Synthon B.V.
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Injunction Application in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Interlocutory (pre Trial)
Outcome
Application for interlocutory injunction refused
Legal Topics
Patent Infringement, Interlocutory Injunctions, Adequacy of Damages, Balance of Convenience
Intellectual Property Commercial Law Patent Infringement Interlocutory Injunctions Adequacy of Damages Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smithkline Beecham plc

Plaintiff

Smithkline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Plaintiff

GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare (Ireland) Ltd.

Plaintiff

Genthon B.V.

Defendant

Synthon B.V.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Injunction Application in Patent Infringement Proceedings / Interlocutory (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted to restrain alleged patent infringement pending trial
  2. 2 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs if the injunction is refused and they succeed at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that damages would not be an adequate remedy for any loss suffered due to the defendants' alleged patent infringement between now and trial; therefore, the application for an interlocutory injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory injunction refused

Orders

  • Comprehensive directions to be given for early trial of both the patent revocation suit and the infringement proceedings