Nichia v. Everlight was decided on April 28, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The patents-in-suit disclosed designs and methods of manufacturing LED devices. After a bench trial, the district court found defendant Everlight infringed plaintiff Nichia’s patents, and that the patents were not invalid. The court then denied …
Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on April 3, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of California. In an earlier December 6, 2016 decision, the Federal Circuit maintained the permanent injunction during the remand, and Chief Judge Prost dissented because she would have vacated the injunction. In the April 3, 2017 decision, the …
In KSM Fastening v. HA Jones (1985), the Federal Circuit laid out the law for finding a defendant in contempt of an injunction for an infringing redesigned product. This was the law for more than twenty five years, until 2011. Under the KSM test, the court first determines whether a …
United Construction v. Tile Tech was decided on December 15, 2016 on appeal from the Central District of California. The patent concerned a support pedestal adapted to support surface tiles to form an elevated building surface. After “a series of delays, missed deadlines, and other procedural missteps by [defendant] Tile Tech,” …
This opinion was superseded. Asetek Danmark v. CMI USA was decided on December 6, 2016 on appeal from the Northern District of California. Plaintiff Asetek prevailed at trial, receiving a judgment of infringement and of no invalidity, plus a damages award against defendant CMI of $404,941 on a 14.5% royalty rate. The district …
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 …
This post will delve into the irreparable harm prong of the injunction analysis post-eBay. 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 the balance of hardships …
Wbip v. Kohler was decided on July 19, 2016 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that defendant Kohler infringed all the asserted claims, that the asserted claims were not invalid, and that Kohler’s infringement was willful (under Seagate’s clear and convincing standard). After the verdict, the district …
SCA Hygiene v. First Quality was decided en banc on September 18, 2015 on appeal from the Western District of Kentucky. Late October in 2003, plaintiff SCA alleged through a letter that defendant First Quality’s absorbent diapers infringed its patent. First Quality replied about a month later that the patent was invalid. In July …
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 …