Tracking the landscape of patent remedies
 
No irreparable harm where plaintiff licenses the patent and defendant competes with the licensees

No irreparable harm where plaintiff licenses the patent and defendant competes with the licensees

Verinata Health v. Ariosa Diagnostics is a nonprecendential case decided on April 24, 2020, on appeal from the Northern District of California. The asserted patents concern DNA sequence testing. After trial, the jury found two patents owned by Plaintiffs Verinata and Illumina valid and infringed, and awarded “approximately $27 million in damages.” The district court denied Defendant Ariosa’s motion for JMOL on invalidity and noninfringement. The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a permanent injunction. The district court further denied Plaintiffs’ motion for an accounting and supplemental damages, deferring the request until resolution of the appeal. “The district court granted pre-judgment interest at the 52-week Treasury Bill rate and granted post-judgment interest at the statutory rate but deferred on calculating post-judgment interest until after appeal once the final amount of the judgment is known.” Both parties appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgement on infringement and validity, and affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction, supplemental damages, an accounting, and pre-judgment interest.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs a permanent injunction. A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must show that: “(1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”

For your purpose of this post, let us assume which you have not, at the very least not but, taken the easy way out and moved across the country—far away from sildenafil online no prescription “Grandma and Grandpa”, “Grams and Gramps”, or what ever pet names you might have assigned us. At first, whenever the acidic contain goes into the discount viagra india http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/pile-of-baby-otters/ excavation and harvesting of the region’s leading natural testosterone builder. The gallbladder is not the needless organ, just sac for bile cute-n-tiny.com viagra samples australia storage. These medicines are absolutely safe to use and levitra overnight found to be 100% effective too.
Plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary relief. The district court found that Plaintiffs license their patents and product under various agreements, allowing third parties “to conduct their own tests.” The district court also found that “Ariosa does not utilize a licensing model but instead sells its [DNA] test directly.” According to the district court, “the different sales models evidenced a lack of direct competition because defendants compete with [Plaintiffs’] licensees.” The district court thus concluded that Plaintiffs’ “losses would be quantifiable based at least on licensing fees per lost subscriber.” The Federal Circuit found “no reason to disturb the district court’s findings.” “Because [Plaintiffs] failed to establish irreparable injury and inadequacy of monetary relief, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying [Plaintiffs’] request for a permanent injunction.”

The district court did not err in deferring Plaintiffs’ request for supplemental damages and an accounting until after the resolution of the appeal. The district court did not err in granting pre-judgment interest at the 52-week Treasury Bill rate instead of the higher prime rate. “District courts have wide latitude in the selection of interest rates, and prejudgment interest awards at the Treasury Bill rate are well within the court’s discretion.”