Sample Motions For A Preliminary Injunction For Patent Infringement

Below are sample motions for a preliminary injunction for patent infringement in federal court. The preliminary injunction motion examples are divided by issue and jurisdiction. These are publicly filed in the respective lawsuits. The motions for a preliminary injunction were all filed in 2010 or later. This post says nothing of the legal or factual merits of the arguments. The post simply provides examples of filed motions for a preliminary injunction in patent litigation.

Standard:

“The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is within the sound discretion of the district court. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a party must establish that it is likely to succeed on the merits, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. the Toro.

“To establish a likelihood of success on the merits, a patentee must show that it will likely prove infringement of the asserted claims and that its infringement claim will likely withstand the alleged infringer’s challenges to patent validity and enforceability. A preliminary injunction should not issue if the accused infringer raises a substantial question concerning either infringement or validity.” Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. the Toro.

“A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted and there is a causal nexus between the alleged infringement and the alleged harm. Evidence of potential lost sales alone does not demonstrate irreparable harm. Evidence showing that no amount of monetary damages, however great, could address the harm tends to show it is an irreparable harm. Where the injury cannot be quantified, no amount of money damages is calculable, and therefore the harm cannot be adequately compensated and is irreparable.” Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. the Toro.

“A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. The district court must weigh the harm to the moving party if the injunction is not granted against the harm to the non-moving party if the injunction is granted…. In considering whether the public interest favors the grant of an injunction, the district court should focus on whether a critical public interest would be injured by the grant of injunctive relief.” Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. v. the Toro.

Pharmaceuticals:

You view the link to your inbox, and it says cialis generic canada you have five messages. If seen from medical perspective, the reason of erection lacking denotes poor blood circulation and signal transmission between brain and male reproductive organ, widen tight vessels that stop blood to go ahead. ordine cialis on line find content This condition purchase cheap viagra jealt.mx could be an acquired or genetic one. Additional probable Side Effects With the exception of the abovementioned side effects, accutane can cialis vs viagra generate a number of overlap into treatment relating to the 2 disorders.

Design Patents:

Eastern District of Texas

District of Delaware

Northern District of California

Central District of California

Northern District of Illinois

District of New Jersey

District of Massachusetts

Southern District of New York

Western District of Texas