ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Eran Bareket, Reinhold Cohn Group
6. Remedies 6.1 Remedies for the Patentee
If the Patent Office revokes the patent, revoca- tions act in rem. If the Patent Office dismisses the revocation action, the district court is free to invalidate the patent (subject to the general rules
As set forth in 1.5 Rights and Obligations of Owners of Intellectual Property Rights , the remedies available to a successful plaintiff in an infringement case are injunction, damages (including provisional damages). The judge has the power to fashion any additional remedy they find appropriate, for example delivery up of infringing goods for destruction. As set forth in 6.2 Rights of Prevailing Defend- ants , the prevailing party is generally entitled to reimbursements of their court and attorneys’ fees. In practice, however, reimbursement is almost always partial. Financial remedies will be enforced by the Exe- cution Office. The Execution Office can also seize and sell properties located in Israel. Remedies for non-compliance with orders given by a court (contempt of court) are enforced by the imposition of a fine or imprisonment in a separate proceeding from the patent litigation. 6.2 Rights of Prevailing Defendants District Courts As a general rule, the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of its reasonable legal costs. However, in practice, reimbursement is almost always partial. The court also has the power to award costs in interim proceedings, but will sometimes defer its decision until after a deci- sion on the merits is made. The courts also have regard to the parties’ con- duct, which may result in denying an award of costs to the winning party (in whole or in part), and even in the court providing for an award in
of issue preclusion). Anti-Suit Injunctions
The court has the power to stay the proceedings before it, pending judgment in foreign litigation. The court may decide to refrain from hearing a claim filed under the doctrines of lis alibi pen- dens or inappropriate forum. The court may also issue anti-suit injunctions, though only in cases where it has been proven by the applicant that the claim filed in the foreign forum is vexatious or filed in mala fides. In the Inter-lab Ltd v Israel Bio-Engineering Project Ltd case, the court enumerated a non-exhaustive list of considerations that must be considered in exercising the power to issue an anti-suit injunc- tion. First, the expected harm to the party seek- ing the injunction, if it is not granted, and harm on the other side if such an order will be issued against them. Secondly, whether the commands of the foreign proceeding are done for the pur- pose of threat or extortion, and whether they violate substantive principles of justice must be examined. Lastly, one of the most important considerations, decided according to the cir- cumstances of each individual case, is whether the grant of the anti-suit injunction will be “just”. If granted, the anti-suit injunction is considered an impersonal remedy. Accordingly, in the con- verse situation, the court in Israel may consider itself not bound by a foreign anti-suit injunction issued by a foreign court.
272 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook