(e) The courts should provide sufficient remedy to an aggrieved party which has suffered severe harm as a result of a PI that was “maliciously” requested in order to obstruct the introduction of the aggrieved party’s product to market.
Despite the above rules, the Supreme Court clearly indicates in the Opinion that the courts should continue to actively grant PIs in copyright and trademark cases involving counterfeiters and other blatant infringers.
Moreover, with respect to the defendant’s answer denying a PI motion, generally only circumstances involving the public health or other “material social interests” (e.g., environmental concerns) should be considered by the court when refusing to grant a PI.
Simply put, in the current economic climate, it would appear that the Supreme Court has indicated that courts should begin to more closely examine any request for a PI - particularly in patent infringement cases - and, at minimum, take into consideration the harm that might follow as a result of granting it.
Contacts
Patrick Ma
+86 21 6105 0550
This article is not intended to give, and should not be relied upon for, legal advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. No action should be taken in reliance upon the information contained in this article without obtaining the advice of an attorney.
