A final injunction was refused in a patent case because, although the defendant had been found to infringe, the court did not accept there was any basis to infer that there would be a continuance of the wrongful activity to justify a quia timet order. Fry LJ said: ‘Now an injunction is granted for prevention, and where there is no ground for apprehending the repetition of a wrongful act there is no ground for an injunction. It was pressed on us that Mr Hares insisted on their having a right to do what they had done, but, looking at all the circumstances of the case, this foolish attempt to justify a past act does not raise any presumption that they intend to repeat it. The injunction therefore falls . .’
Cotton LJ said: ‘That the patent is valid, and that the Defendants have infringed it, is not in dispute, the question is whether there is any ground for an injunction. It does not follow that because a man has done a wrongful act an injunction will be granted against him, though he is liable to damages for the wrong. The Court of Chancery said, ‘Where a man threatens and intends to do a wrongful act, we will, before it is done, grant an injunction to prevent his doing it, and we will grant it where the act has been done and is likely to be repeated’ – the jurisdiction is simply preventive . . Where a patent is infringed the patentee has a prima facie case for an injunction, for it is to be presumed that an infringer intends to go on infringing, and that the patentee has a right to an injunction to prevent his doing so. . . In the present case the Defendants have infringed the patent, but we must look at all the circumstances to see whether there is any ground for inferring that they intend to continue to infringe it.’
Judges:
Fry LJ, Cotton LJ
Citations:
(1889) 42 Ch D 390, (1889) 6 RPC 538
Cited by:
Cited – Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd CA 8-Mar-2013
The parties competed in providing employment law services. The claimant complained of slanderous comments said to have been made by the defendant in discussions with a firm of solicitors seeking to select a firm. The claimant now appealed against . .
Cited – Citation Plc v Ellis Whittam Ltd QBD 14-Mar-2012
The company parties were competitors. The claimant alleged slander and malicious falsehood. Tugendhat J considered and reviewed the law applicable to an application for an interim restraining injunction, and a final order granted at trial. . .
Cited – Jeeg Global Ltd v Hare QBD 29-Mar-2012
The claimant had obtained an order restricting the defendant from asserting any kind of insolvency in the claimant. The defendant now sought the strike out of the claim as an abuse of process. He said that any such disclosure had been on one . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Intellectual Property
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.471572
