Posts Tagged: "Injunctions"

No evidence of lost sales or price erosion means no irreparable harm and no permanent injunction

Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) sued Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Zenaro Lighting (collectively, “Everlight”) for infringement of three of Nichia’s patents disclosing packaging designs and methods of manufacturing LED devices. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Everlight infringed all three patents and failed to prove the patents invalid. The district court denied Nichia’s request for a permanent injunction. Nichia appealed the district court’s refusal to enter a permanent injunction, and Everlight cross-appealed the district court’s infringement and validity findings. The Court affirmed on all grounds.

Taking stock of the health of the American patent system, a system in crisis

“In our time together today we are going to try and take stock of the health of the American patent system,” Michel began. “It is important to remember that the patent system was founded in the Constitution… and although the world ‘right’ appears many times in the Bill of Rights, in the original Constitution the only ‘right’ mentioned is the patent right.”… Investment is being disincentivized by uncertainty created by the aforementioned three waves of changes to the system. We should be looking at the impact on the flow of money, Michel explained.

Whirlpool Corporation wins permanent injunction in patent suit against Chinese water filter manufacturer

Whirlpool successfully argued that it would be irreparably harmed without the relief of permanent injunction in addition to the settlement agreement, which is executed separately of the court order. The recent court order for permanent injunction also affirmed the validity of all four utility patents asserted in the case along with finding that the defendant’s importation and sale of replacement water filters infringed on claims covered by the patents-in-suit.

Federal Circuit Affirms Grant of Preliminary Injunction to Patent Owner

A preliminary injunction was appropriate when non-infringement depended on an erroneous claim construction; the evidence did not show the proposed combination of references for non-obviousness was enabled; irreparable harm was likely despite other competition, and the injunction tipped in favor of the public interest… The Court held that the fact that other infringers may be in the marketplace does not negate irreparable harm. It also held that the loss by Scag of customers may have far-reaching, long-term impact on its future revenues, and the sales lost by Scag are difficult to quantify due to “ecosystem effects,” where one company’s customers will continue to buy that company’s products and recommend them to others.

What Inventors Need to Fix the Patent System

While we have damaged our patent system, China has strengthened theirs. Job creation is stagnant, economic growth is anemic and the America Dream is dying. Congress must act to correct this damage and fix the patent system… The PTAB must be eliminated because no matter what changes are made to the rules it is difficult to see how this Board could ever be reigned in after starting and existing for the purpose of killing patents. Just changing the rules will not fix its systemic problems nor create a fairer process for patent owners.

The Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Grant of Preliminary Injunction

Practitioners dealing with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation should be sure to preserve objections for appeal, since failing to object may lead to a more deferential, plain error standard of review, depending on the applicable circuit law. Further, in seeking a preliminary injunction, evidence of harm from pre-issuance of the asserted patent is relevant to show likelihood of irreparable harm from similar injuries in the future.

The Transformation of the American Patent System: Adverse Consequences of Court Decisions

Activist Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have been principally responsible for these changes, stimulated by aggressive technology company incumbent lobbying. The combination of these decisions has had a far greater effect on the patent system and the economy than the Court originally intended. The U.S. is now in a compulsory licensing regime in which large technology incumbents that control at least 80% of collective market share employ an “efficient infringement” model of ignoring patents and forcing patent holders to enforce patent rights in the courts.

Water Balloons, Weapons of Mass Destruction and the PTAB

The Federal Circuit, while deciding a preliminary injunction was properly granted, addressed the PTAB decision in its oral arguments and in its decision. In oral arguments Judge Moore stated, “You have to be able to say substantially, ‘cause there’s a million patents that use the word substantially.” And in their written decision the Federal Circuit explained: “We find it difficult to believe that a person with an associate’s degree in a science or engineering discipline who had read the specification and relevant prosecution history would be unable to determine with reasonable certainty when a water balloon is “substantially filled.”

Infringe at Will Culture Takes Hold as America’s Patent System Erodes

Perhaps when the Senate Banking Committee convenes to consider the nomination of Wall Street attorney Jay Clayton as the new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission they should ask about efficient infringement and the infringe at will culture. What is your position, Mr. Clayton, on the legal obligation of a public company to shareholders? Should publicly traded companies inform shareholders that patent assets are worthless, or at least worth less, given the legal and regulatory climate in America? Should publicly traded companies systematically infringe and ignore all patent rights? Should publicly traded companies be using billions in shareholder monies to aggressively collect patent assets while they are simultaneously using millions to lobby against the viability of patents? What exactly do shareholders have a right to know?

Amgen v. Regeneron: Will the permanent injunction against Regeneron’s new PCSK9-inhibitor hold up on appeal?

On January 5, 2017, the District of Delaware issued its long-awaited decision in the patent dispute pending between Amgen and Regeneron wherein the Court granted Amgen’s request for a permanent injunction against Regeneron’s new PCSK9-inhibitor cholesterol drug. Both Amgen and Regeneron each independently spent billions of dollars over the past decade-plus developing a new class of cholesterol drug. The drug itself comprises an antibody that binds to PCSK9 proteins… Whereas Regeneron managed to be the first to market, Amgen succeeded in getting to the Patent Office first. Amgen originally sued Regeneron, along with Sanofi, its European partner, in October 2014. Amgen asserted three patents directed to antibodies that bind to PCSK9. Over the next month, Amgen commenced additional lawsuits as new patents issued from the Patent Office. The cases were eventually consolidated, but Amgen eventually went to trial against Regeneron on only two of the originally asserted patents.

Reverse Patent Reform in 2017 or Wipe out a Generation of Inventors

Every time a new patent reform bill moves forward in Congress, the courts create case law eliminating the need to pass the bill. They legislate from the bench to protect their turf. The infringer lobby took advantage of this dynamic and pushed bills that would stimulate response from the courts… I think we should employ this well proven method of changing law. I know this is not how our government is supposed to work, but let’s be pragmatic. We cannot force an unwilling government to follow its own constitutional processes. So, we need to work with what is available.

CAFC Remands Injunction Against Dismissed Party, Affirms Infringement and Validity

A district court does not have authority to issue an injunction against a party not adjudicated to be liable for infringement in the underlying case unless that party aided or abetted the liable party in the infringement, or the non-liable party is legally identified with the liable party through privity or some other means. This determination requires specific findings of fact about the parties.

PCT International keeps permanent injunction thanks to Rule 36 affirmance

A lack of written opinion in the Rule 36 affirmance issued by Federal Circuit wasn’t an issue for PCT’s counsel. “These types of results reflect a wholesale rejection of the laundry list of appellate issues Holland had attempted to raise,” Laurus noted. “Prompt resolution of this is better than some lengthy opinion that might issue months down the road.”

Rule 36 Judgment: The growing problem of one word affrimance by the Federal Circuit

In PCT International, Inc. v. Holland Electronics, LLC, the use of a Rule 36 judgment is particularly disconcerting because the Federal Circuit upheld the issuance of a permanent injunction by the district court. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange over a decade ago it has become increasingly difficult, indeed at times impossible, for victorious patent owners to enjoy exclusive rights once they have prevailed in a patent infringement litigation. Issuing a Rule 36 judgment where the patent owner was victorious and a permanent injunction stands robs the patent owner community of vital Federal Circuit precedent that could otherwise be used to inform district courts on the appropriateness of this extraordinarily important remedy.

Available Remedies under the DTSA

The DTSA amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”) to provide for civil remedies in federal courts for the misappropriation of trade secrets. The new Section 1836(b) provides for both equitable and monetary relief. Subsection 1836(b)(3) authorizes a federal court to grant an injunction to prevent actual or threatened misappropriation of trade secrets. The language is identical to § 2 of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”). However, there are a number of limitations as to when a court may issue an injunction under the DTSA. First, the injunction may not “(I) prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship, and that conditions placed on such employment shall be based on evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows ….” Section 1836(b)(3)(A)(i)(I).