35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that “the court shall award [the patent owner] damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer.” “A patent owner, having prevailed on liability, may receive a reasonable royalty or lost …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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 …
Akamai v. Limelight was decided on November 16, 2015 on appeal from the District of Massachusetts. There, a jury found that plaintiff Akamai’s patent (claiming a method for delivering content over the internet) was not invalid and was infringed by defendant Limelight. To prove damages, Akamai relied on Dr. Ugone’s expert testimony, …
Canon v. GCC is a non-precedential opinion decided on January 25, 2008 on appeal from the Southern District of New York.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 …