Author name: Balaji Subramanian

Here’s the second of Saahil Dama’s guest posts on interim injunctions in patent cases. Here, he examines cases in which the judiciary has attempted to lay down safeguards against the misuse of ex parte orders. [Warning: This is a fairly long post.] Saahil is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur. He is currently in the fourth year and is pursuing Intellectual Property Law Honours at the University. You can find his previous post here. Interrogating Interim Injunctions: The Curious Case

Continuing in our series of posts highlighting the inequity of interim injunctions in patent cases, here’s a guest post from Saahil Dama. Saahil is a student at National Law University, Jodhpur. He is currently in the fourth year and is pursuing Intellectual Property Law Honours at the University. Interrogating Interim Injunctions: The Difficulty in Getting Vacations By Saahil Dama In furtherance of our I-3 series, I’ll be writing a short post on the case of Microsoft Corporation v. Dhiren Gopal

As part of our new series interrogating interim injunctions, I profiled the Vifor-Symed dispute over iron carboxymaltose. I lamented the fact that over forty-four months since the ex parte interim injunction was issued, arguments over the validity of the order were still pending. Some of the anonymous comments on that post were extremely insightful, questioning the assumptions on which this series of posts was premised on. Here, I attempt to counter one such argument advanced in the comments – the

This post is a part of our I-3 series, in which we study cases in which we question the promiscuity of interim injunctions in patent cases. For my previous post in the series, click here. Interim orders, in the ideal world, should be short-lived creatures. In the cases we’re putting before you, however, it appears that they are being nurtured and nourished by a combination of actors, both from the bar and the bench. This particular case features an ex