The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prohibit the defendant from challenging the validity of a U.S. patent owned by the plaintiffs, relying on a 'no challenge' clause in a prior settlement agreement.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a strong prima facie case because the defendant's U.S. subsidiary, which was challenging the patent, was not a party to the agreement.
Furthermore, the court held that the restrictive covenant was not reasonable in the public interest, as it would prevent a potentially valid defence and run counter to the public policy favouring free competition.
