IPR Holders Seeking Provisional Attachment or Provisional Injunction Alleging Possible Infringement Will Need to Make Preliminary Showing of Grounds.

High-tech corporations will soon be barred from interrupting their competitors’ business operation by utilizing the evidence perpetuation proceeding.  According to the proposed draft of the Act Governing Hearing of Cases Arising from Disputes over Intellectual Property Rights, the operation of the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will be precluded from operation and, in addition to a security bond, the movant for a ruling for perpetuation of evidence must make a preliminary showing of the grounds for the motion.  According to the second paragraph of Article 22 of the proposed Act, the movant for a ruling for injunction maintaining a temporary status quo with regard to the legal relationship in dispute shall make a preliminary showing of the urgency to investigate the evidence the perpetuation of which is being sought for.  The court in which the motion is filed shall dismiss the motion should the movant fail to give a sufficient preliminary showing of the grounds for the motion.  The above requirement is to operate with respect to and only to cases arising from disputes over intellectual property right, namely cases concerning patents, trademarks, and copyright, etc.

  Civil lawsuits arising from disputes over patent rights have increased in number since patent infringement was decriminalized.  It is common for the parties to exhaust legal means available to maneuver their attack and defense throughout the proceeding.  As opposed to an action which normally takes three to four years to end with a final judgment with binding effects, patentees consider a provisional attachment order or provisional injunction order serves as a much more time-efficient weapon as a matter of law.

  In practice, intellectual property right holders mostly will elect to provide a security bond and move for a ruling for injunction maintaining the temporary status quo of the legal relationship in dispute with a view to immediately enjoining the suspected infringer from manufacturing, selling and distributing the alleged infringing product.  As the ruling, once granted, operates to bog down the suspected infringer in no time, the outcome may be more devastating than that of an action as far as the respondent is concerned.  (2006.02)