{"id":7919,"date":"2018-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-07-23T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.darts-ip.com\/\/blog\/2018\/07\/23\/rules-about-interlocutory-injunction-in-singapore-in-pharma\/"},"modified":"2018-07-23T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-07-23T00:00:00","slug":"blog-interlocutory-injunction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/blog\/blog-interlocutory-injunction\/","title":{"rendered":"Rules about interlocutory injunction in Singapore in pharma"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3>Supreme Court of Singapore ; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Drug Houses of Australia Pte Ltd, [2018] SGHC 149 \u2013 26 June 2018<\/h3>\n<p>On June 26, the Supreme Court of Singapore had the opportunity to detail the rules about interlocutory injunction in Singapore within the pharma sector.<\/p>\n<p>This decision from the Supreme Court of Singapore is interesting for three main reasons.<\/p>\n<p>First, it teaches us that a patentee who seeks a \u00ab\u00a0quia timet\u00a0\u00bb injunction takes upon himself the burden of proving that it is reasonably certain that what the defendant is threatening and intending to do will cause imminent and substantial damage to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the Supreme Court quoted several case law from UK and India to reach its conclusion refusing the preliminary injunction.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court has notably cited the very old and landmark UK case \u00ab\u00a0American Cyanamid Co v Ethicom\u00a0\u00bb Ltd [1975] AC 396, in which a set of guidelines were developed to establish whether a patentee merited the granting of an interlocutory injunction.<\/p>\n<p>The main \u00ab\u00a0American Cyanamid\u00a0\u00bb guidelines have been taken into account by the Supreme Court of Singapore to reach its conclusion refusing the preliminary injunction\u00a0:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether there is a serious question to be tried\u00a0;<\/li>\n<li>whether damages were an adequate remedy for a claimant if an injunction was not granted\u00a0;<\/li>\n<li>What would be the balance of convenience of each party should the order be granted.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In this case, the Supreme Court of Singapore concluded that a the plaintiff was not able to show, on its summons for interlocutory injunction, that there was a \u201cserious question to be tried\u201d and that damages would not be an adequate remedy for it in the event it succeeded at trial.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Supreme Court of Singapore reminds the obligations of generic manufacturers regarding the respect of patent rights. According to the Court, an applicant seeking to register a therapeutic product &#8211; if a patent is in force in respect of said therapeutic product to which the application relates, the applicant is not the proprietor of the patent, the proprietor has not consented \u00a0to nor acquiesced in the grant of the registration &#8211; must make one of the following two types of declarations:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>a \u201cCategory A3\u201d declaration, if the applicant is requesting for registration to be granted after the patent expires\u00a0; an application with a Category A3 declaration may not be made earlier than 18 months before the patent expires\u00a0; or<\/li>\n<li>a \u201cCategory B\u201d declaration, if in the applicant\u2019s opinion and to its best belief, the patent is invalid or will not be infringed by the doing of the act for which registration is sought.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><em>Notes:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em> House of Lords, American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 (\u201cAmerican Cyanamid\u201d) (darts-194-304-A-en) ; Eng &amp; Wales High Court, Cephalon, Inc and Others v Orchid Europe Limited and Generics (UK) Ltd (t\/a Mylan) [2010] EWHC 2945 (darts-355-889-A-en)\u00a0; High Court of Delhi, Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme Corporation and another v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals FAO (OS) 190\/2013 (darts-290-499-D-en).<\/em><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of Singapore ; Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc v. Drug Houses of Australia Pte Ltd, [2018] SGHC 149 \u2013 26 June 2018 On June 26, the Supreme Court of Singapore&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":164,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[486],"class_list":["post-7919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-darts-ip"],"acf":[],"lang":"en","translations":{"en":7919},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7919","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/164"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7919"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7919\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}