Jury royalty affirmed but injunction partially vacated because Defendant depends entirely on sales of enjoined products

Bio-Rad Labs. v. 10X Genomics was decided on August 3, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. The jury found that Plaintiff Bio-Rad’s three asserted patents were valid and willfully infringed, and “awarded damages in the amount of $23,930,716.” Post-trial, the district court denied Defendant 10X’s motion for  JMOL, …

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 …

Balance of the harms disfavors injunction where movant does not show irreparable harm

LEGO v. ZURU is a nonprecedential case decided on January 15, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut. Plaintiff LEGO filed a complaint against defendant ZURU for copyright, trademark, and patent infringement and obtained a temporary restraining order. After a hearing, the court granted LEGO’s motion for a preliminary …

Lost profits and permanent injunction found appropriate in two-supplier market

TEK Global v. Sealant Systems was decided on March 29, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The patent related to tire repair kits. At trial, the jury found some claims not invalid, and awarded plaintiff TEK $2,525,482 in lost profits and $255,388 in the form of a reasonable royalty. After trial, …

Infringement, direct competition, and past harms support permanent injunction against generics company

Endo v. Teva is a nonprecedential case decided on May 16, 2018 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court found all asserted claims by plaintiff Endo against defendant Teva not invalid, and found all but two asserted claims infringed. The district court then issued a permanent injunction against …

Denial of preliminary injunction is vacated as it was based on a flawed claim construction

Liqwd v. L’Oreal is a nonprecedential opinion decided on January 16, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The asserted patent described a method of bleaching hair by applying to the hair a particular mixture. The district court denied Liqwd’s motion for a preliminary injunction after claim construction. Because the adopted …

Preliminary injunction upheld because the loss of a potential lifelong customer is irreparable

Metalcraft of Mayville v. Toro was decided on February 16, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The patent relates to a system for ride-on lawnmowers. The district court granted plaintiff Metalcraft a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant Toro from making, using, selling, and offering to sell lawnmowers equipped with …

Federal Circuit on balancing the hardships for a post-eBay injunction

In this post, I will analyze the balance of the hardships prong for a post-eBay injunction. Injunction elements A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must show (1) that it has suffered irreparable harm; (2) that remedies available at law (monetary damages) are inadequate to compensate for the harm; (3) that …

Irreparable harm’s causal nexus shown where users preferred the patented features over alternatives

Apple Inc. v. Samsung was decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, the jury awarded Plaintiff-Apple $119,625,000 for Defendant-Samsung’s infringement of three of five asserted patents. Following the verdict, the district court denied Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction, finding that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. Apple …

Past harms of competitor’s lost market share, revenues, and brand recognition support permanent injunction

I4I v. Microsoft was decided on March 9, 2010 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved a host of issues, but this post will only deal with the injunction. In the case, the jury found that defendant Microsoft willfully infringed the asserted claims of the patent.  After trial, …