{"title":"专利禁令与公共利益:valve 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":"{\"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}","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}
The public interest and patent injunctions: Evalve v Edwards Lifescience [2020] EWHC 513 (Pat)
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
