Pre-patent consumer confusion, reputational harm, and loss of goodwill support irreparable harm

Tinnus v. Telebrands was decided on January 24, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted plaintiff Tinnus a preliminary injunction, affirming a Magistrage Judge’s finding that the claims were likely infringed, were not vulnerable on indefiniteness or obviousness grounds, and that Tinnus made a showing …

Injunction upheld: Defendant didn’t raise a substantial question as to infringement or invalidity

Edge v. Aguila was a nonprecedential case decided on December 21, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of Florida. There, plaintiff-Edge sued Defendant-Aguila for patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement. After the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the district court granted Edge’s motion for preliminary injunction. Aguila appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction …

Preliminary injunction vacated because defendant’s obviousness argument raised a substantial question of invalidity

Sciele Pharma v. Lupin was decided on July 1, 2012 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court granted plaintiff Sciele a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant Lupin from “further importation and sales of its generic [product].” Lupin appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded. “In deciding whether …

Price erosion and loss of market share tip the balance of the hardships in favor of an injunction

Canon v. GCC is a non-precedential opinion decided on January 25, 2008 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court granted plaintiff Canon a preliminary injunction. Defendant GCC appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction grant. A patent owner seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “(1) a reasonable likelihood …