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Liqwd v. L’Oreal is a nonprecedential opinion decided on January 16, 2018 on appeal from the District of Delaware.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 …

For multi-component products, causal nexus only requires some connection between the feature and product demand

Genband v. Metaswitch was decided on July 10, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, after a jury found that Defendant Metaswitch infringed claims of Plaintiff Genband’s patents, and that the claims were not invalid, Genband moved for a permanent injunction. The district court denied the request because “Genband …

Causal nexus found where Defendant couldn’t achieve ANDA product without infringing

Mylan v. Aurobindo was decided on May 19, 2017 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. There, the district court granted co-Plaintiff Mylan’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the compound and process patents, finding that Defendant Aurobindo likely infringed the patents under the doctrine of equivalents, and that Arubindo …

No further lost-profits apportionment needed when applying the Panduit factors

Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA was decided on March 16, 2017 on appeal from the District of Oregon. The patents concerned simulation/emulation technology. After plaintiff Mentor sued defendant EVE for patent infringement, EVE sued Mentor for a declaratory judgment that a non-asserted patent was invalid. Mentor then counterclaimed for willful infringement of …

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 …

Likely success not shown where the district court relied on erroneous claim construction

Chamberlain v. Techtronic is a nonprecedential case decided on January 25, 2017 on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. There, the district court granted plaintiff Chamberlain a preliminary injunction, finding that Chamberlain had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim. Techtronic appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated the grant …

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 …

Federal Circuit on finding a party in contempt for a redesigned product that violates an injunction

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 …

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 …

Federal Circuit on finding irreparable harm for a post-eBay injunction

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 …