Well Lead Medical Co Limited v CJ Medical Limited

On an application for an interim patent injunction, the court must address the American Cyanamid stages in sequence. It should not assume that damages are inadequate or move directly to the balance of convenience. Damages need be adequate, rather than perfect, and may be assessed using reliable forecasts and a counterfactual analysis. Alleged loss of market exclusivity, price depression, reputational harm or deterrence of third-party entrants requires evidence specific to the case. The status quo is assessed immediately before proceedings or the application where substantially later. Where the defendant has already entered the market, an injunction may alter rather than preserve that status quo. An injunction was refused because damages were an adequate remedy for the patentee and, in any event, the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The claimant, a medical-device manufacturer, sought interim injunctive relief restraining the defendant from supplying or dealing in the Seplou Sheath, a ureteral access sheath alleged to infringe EP(UK) 3 760 143 B1. The defendant denied infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity. The application also raised whether the claimant was the patent proprietor, the parties’ dealings before proceedings, the adequacy of damages, and the balance of convenience.

The court determined the interim application without conducting a mini-trial on infringement or validity. The central questions were whether damages were an adequate remedy for each party and, if necessary, where the balance of convenience lay.

1. Patent proprietorship. The claimant was satisfied to be the proprietor despite differences between the names and addresses in the assignment, claim form and UKIPO register. Section 60 of the Patents Act 1977 did not require registration of proprietorship, and section 68 expressly contemplated proceedings by an unregistered proprietor.
2. Stage 1. There was a serious issue to be tried. The defendant accepted that the claimant had an arguable infringement case. The court did not conduct a mini-trial on infringement or validity.
3. Stage 2. Damages were adequate for the claimant. Loss of market exclusivity was not, without more, a free-standing basis for finding unquantifiable harm. The evidence did not establish that the defendant’s presence would impair market education, encourage third-party entry, produce a price war, or cause irreversible price depression. Alleged derogatory statements were unsupported and lacked a sufficient nexus with the injunction sought.
4. The court applied the guidance in Neurim: damages must be adequate, not perfect, and the court should do the best it can on the evidence. The claimant’s sales and pricing forecasts provided a workable basis for assessing any shortfall after trial. The January 2025 trial listing made any period of possible price depression relatively short.
5. Stage 3. Although the issue did not strictly arise, damages would also have been adequate for the defendant. Forecast sales provided a sufficient basis for quantification. Alleged convoyed sales, reputational damage and enforcement difficulties in China were unsupported or quantifiable.
6. Stage 4. If required, the balance of convenience would have favoured refusal. The status quo was assessed at 16 February 2024. By then the defendant had promoted the product, offered it for sale and accepted orders for 45 units. It was therefore already on the market, and an injunction would have altered rather than preserved the status quo.
7. The application for interim injunctive relief was refused.

First-instance decision on an application for interim injunctive relief. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.