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Xiaohua Huang v. MediaTek U.S. is a nonprecedential case decided on June 3, 2020 on appeal from the Northern District of California.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 …

Finding of bad faith is required to enjoin patentee from making infringement accusations

Myco v. BlephEx was decided on April 3, 2020 on appeal from the Eastern District of Michigan. Declaratory plaintiff Myco filed an action against declaratory defendant BlephEx, seeking a declaration of no infringement and that the claims of BlephEx’s patent are invalid, and for injunctive and monetary relief. The district …

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LEGO v. ZURU is a nonprecedential case decided on January 15, 2020, on appeal from the District of Connecticut.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

Preliminary injunction inappropriate where defendant raised a substantial question of validity under anticipation

OrthoAccel Technologies v. Propel Orthodontics is a nonprecedential case decided on September 23, 2019 on appeal from the Northern District of California. The district court denied plaintiff OrthoAccel’s motion for a preliminary injunction because defendant Propel raised a substantial question of validity for the patent under anticipation. OrthoAccel appealed. The Federal …

Preliminary injunction vacated due to erroneous construction of asserted claims

Indivior v. Dr. Reddy’s is a nonprecedential case decided on November 20, 2018 on appeal from the District of New Jersey. In the first ANDA case, plaintiff Indivior sued defendant Dr. Reddy’s, alleging infringement. The district court found that Dr. Reddy’s ANDA did not infringe the asserted patent. After the judgment …

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 …

Federal Circuit on showing a causal nexus for an injunction of a multi-component product

A party seeking an injunction must make a clear showing that it is at risk of irreparable harm. In cases where “the accused product includes many features of which only one (or a small minority) infringe,” a finding that the patentee will be at risk of irreparable harm “does not …

Irreparable harm shown where risk averse customers would perceive that plaintiff no longer had an exclusive license

MACOM Tech. v. Infineon was decided on January 29, 2018 on appeal from the Central District of California. The parties entered into an agreement that allowed plaintiff MACOM and defendant Infineon to share rights to practice licensed patents within a general “Field of Use.” The agreement further defined an “Exclusive Field” …