Federal Circuit Remands For Further Consideration of Proper Irreparable Harm Test for Permanent Injunction

Author: Alexander E. Harding*
Editor: Kara A. Specht

In Genband US v. Metaswitch Networks, No 2017-1148 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit clarified that a patentee only need show “some connection” between the patent and sales of infringing products to meet the irreparable harm requirement for a permanent injunction.

The Eastern District of Texas granted an $8.1 million jury verdict to Genband for patent infringement, for patents related to internet voice-communication services, but refused to also grant a permanent injunction, finding that Genband failed to satisfy the showing of irreparable harm by failing to identify a causal nexus showing that “the patented features drive demand for the [infringing] product.”   Continue reading

Tagged ,

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – July 2017

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – February 2017

Authors: Courtney Kasuboski*
Editor: Caitlin O’Connell & Lily Robinson

Monday, July 10, 2017

Nalco Company v. Chem-Mod, LLC, No. 17-1036, Courtroom 201

This appeal arises from a Northern District of Illinois decision dismissing Nalco’s infringement complaint with prejudice and denying its motion for reconsideration. Nalco argues that the law does not require pleading all underlying evidence, but rather only requires evidence sufficient to establish entitlement to relief and notice of its claim. Chem-Mod argues that the district court properly dismissed Nalco’s complaint with prejudice after Nalco repeatedly failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a plausible claim and properly rejected Nalco’s attempt to bolster its complaint with materials put before the court in its motion for reconsideration.
Continue reading


USPTO Can Receive Its Attorneys’ Fees for Applicant Appeals to District Court

Author: Yoonhee Kim
Editor: Kevin D. Rodkey

In NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the USPTO’s motion for attorneys’ fees, holding that the “expenses” authorized under 35 U.S.C. § 145 include the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees. Continue reading

Tagged ,