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 …

Injunction denied, despite irreparable harm provision, because Plaintiff is not likely to show breach of contract

Takeda v. Mylan was decided on July 31, 2020, on appeal from the District of Delaware. In 2016, Plaintiff Takeda sued Defendant Mylan for patent infringement. The parties ultimately settled. The license agreement allows Mylan to sell a generic product in the event that a court decision “hold[s] that all …

Denial of preliminary injunction and dismissal with prejudice for defective contentions affirmed

Xiaohua Huang v. MediaTek U.S. is a nonprecedential case decided on June 3, 2020 on appeal from the Northern District of California. After denying Plaintiff Huang’s motion for sanctions, a TRO, and a preliminary injunction, the district court struck Huang’s fourth set of infringement contentions for failing to comply the …

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 …

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LEGO v. ZURU is a nonprecedential case decided on January 15, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut.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, …

District court decisions granting preliminary injunctions for patent infringement

To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must show 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 the hardships tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. The …

Denial of permanent injunction vacated because willingness to license does not necessarily mean no irreparable harm – modified opinion –

Texas Advanced Optoelectronic v. Renesas was decided on July 9, 2018 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The Federal Circuit granted petition for rehearing and reissued the opinion, modifying the opinion released on May 1, 2018. The principal change relates to the evidence relied on by Texas Advanced in its …

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 …