Posts Tagged: "preliminary injunction"

Unlike other jurisdictions, injunctions in Brazil are no equitable remedy. There is no discretionary power of the court to decide whether to grant a permanent injunction upon the finding of infringement at the end of the proceedings. Injunctive relief is the primary remedy, and it can only be substituted by financial damages at the election of the plaintiff. Preliminary injunctions, on the other hand, are subjected to the discretion of the courts—and must pass a test of balance of hardships.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision affirming the grant of a narrowly-tailored preliminary injunction to SoClean, Inc., a medical device company that makes CPAP machines, based on trademark infringement claims against Sunset Healthcare Solutions, Inc. SoClean alleged in 2021 that Sunset infringed its U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,080,195. The registration covers the configuration of replacement filters for its sanitizing devices.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today held in a precedential decision that Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GMBH cannot stop Philips from seeking an exclusion order at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to enjoin Thales from importing its products relating to wireless network technology into the United States.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada denying Power Probe’s request for a preliminary injunction to bar future sales of Innova Electronics Corporation’s Powercheck #5420 device. The CAFC held that the district court erred in its preliminary claim construction, particularly in determining that “detecting continuity and measuring continuity are mutually exclusive.”

On December 1, Judge Alan Albright, sitting in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, granted a preliminary injunction (PI) to Gonza LLC, finding that all four factors of the judicial test for injunctive relief favored Gonza. IPWatchdog is told it is one of only a handful of PIs Albright has issued. On July 28, 2021, Gonza LLC sued Mission Competition Fitness Equipment (MCF) in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. Gonza sought both injunctive relief and damages arising out of MCF’s alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 11,007,405 (the ‘405 patent). Gonza asserted that it developed the subject matter of the ‘405 patent, which discloses a neck exercise device with resistance bands that can be used to improve neck capabilities, during a period of over two years. In its complaint, Gonza contended that MCF released a knock-off device that used lower quality materials, but nonetheless infringed the ‘405 patent. Gonza argued that MCF’s infringement of their ‘405 patent created a loss of goodwill, eroded the market price, and caused extreme negative consequences for Gonza’s business.

At a time when most policymakers rightly argue that China and other countries need to do more to clamp down on intellectual property infringement, overturning the four-factor eBay test would impose new hurdles and increase the PAE problem that Congress and the Supreme Court have fought to address over that last two decades. The risk that an implementer engages in “efficient infringement” has made the ITC an increasingly attractive forum, for at least some patent owners and notably not PAEs. ITC exclusion orders and cease and desist orders are the last vestige of the exclusivity promised to the right patent owners at the time they are granted a patent. Compared to proposed sections of the STRONGER Patents Act, the ITC strikes a balance between offering at least some patent owners the ability to prevent infringers from engaging in the never-ending game of “efficient infringement” while frustrating PAEs attempts to abuse the exclusionary remedies offered.  Congressional action should be reserved for a time when there is clear evidence that the eBay decision is harming U.S. businesses and those U.S. businesses are unable to obtain the relief they need at the ITC. At this time, there is no such evidence.

How the likelihood of success on the merits should (or should not) be determined and the four factors balanced in a patent infringement case, are areas in which there has been significant disagreement among the judges of the Federal Circuit… Whether or not to grant the extraordinary relief of preliminary injunction to a patentee is a matter largely within the discretion of the trial court. This discretion is to be exercised in consistence with traditional principles of equity, grounded on well-articulated principles, and based on long-held precedents.  Grant or denial of a preliminary injunction by a trial court may be overturned only upon a showing of abuse of discretion by the trial court.  Failing to consider the totality of the preliminary injunction factors during review can lead to an outcome inconsistent with the requirements of equity.

U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon of the Eastern District of Louisiana entered a preliminary injunction order against Jolie Home, LLC and other defendants accused of trademark infringement by Annie Sloan Interiors, the U.K.-based makers of Annie Sloan® Chalk Paint®. The preliminary injunction orders the defendants to cease their “reverse passing off” of Annie Sloan® products as Jolie Home products and their distribution of advertisements and labels for Jolie Home paints which claim to use the same formula as Annie Sloan® Chalk Paint® and used the trademarked phrase “chalk paint” in a non-fair use manner.

The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A., which vacated a preliminary injunction handed out by the District of New Jersey in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case brought by British pharmaceutical firm Indivior. The Federal Circuit panel majority concluded that the district court had abused its discretion in granting the injunction. The majority found that the ‘305 patent’s specification disparaged, and therefore disclaimed, the method of drying the films with the use of conventional methods which only dry the top of the film. Judge Pauline Newman authored a dissenting opinion in which she explained she would have found the district court’s preliminary injunction grant sustained on appeal. According to Judge Newman, the majority’s decision imported the drying limitation from the ‘514 patent claims into the ‘305 patent claims despite the fact that the ‘305 patent was amended specifically to remove this limitation.

On Monday, October 22nd, U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York entered an opinion and order in a trademark case brought by Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba against a group of companies operating in Dubai and Belarus involved in marketing a cryptocurrency known as AlibabaCoin. Judge Oetken’s order granted Alibaba’s motion enjoining the defendants from using Alibaba’s protected marks in the U.S., including in connection with goods and services provided over the Internet to U.S. consumers. Another motion filed by Alibaba to compel documents from the defendants was denied as moot.

A resounding en garde was declared by California craft beer brand Stone to MillerCoors, the second largest beer company in the United States, over the alleged taking of their brand recognition. On February 12, 2018 Stone Brewing filed a federal complaint alleging trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, and California unfair competition. The complaint requests preliminary and permanent injunction, declaratory relief, and both actual and treble damages on the basis of willful trademark infringement by MillerCoors… A particularly interesting factor in this case is likelihood of irreparable harm. MillerCoors may find room for defensive maneuvers due to recent shifts in the standard for proving irreparable harm.

Turning to the injunction, Infineon was enjoined from undertaking certain activities concerning products in the Exclusive Field that practice the licensed patents. The Court vacated this provision because it lacks the specificity required by FRCP 65(d). The Court found that this sentence of the injunction “is, in essence, an injunction prohibiting infringing acts—but without reference to any particular, adjudicated infringing product,” and “[i]ndeed, no product has yet been adjudicated.”

The Eastern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction against Aurobindo in favor of Mylan in the case of Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. On appeal at the Federal Ciruit, Aurobindo challenged three district court findings: 1) it was likely that Aurobindo infringed; 2) Aurobindo failed to raise a substantial question of validity; and 3) there was irreparable harm to Mylan. The Federal Circuit found that, while the district court made some errors, it correctly analyzed one of the three Mylan patents, and the preliminary injunction was affirmed.