Category Archives: Remedies

Affirmed Preliminary Injunction Leaves Water Balloon Infringer All Wet

Authors: Jonathan J. Fagan
Editor: Kevin D. Rodkey

In Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., No. 16-1410 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, finding no clear error in that decision.

Tinnus sued Telebrands for infringement of Tinnus’s patent directed to a hose attachment that fills multiple water balloons at once. Tinnus moved for a preliminary injunction, which was granted by the district court. Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Claim Term Given Plain Meaning Absent Clear Disclaimer or Disavowal

Author: Christopher B. McKinley
Editor: Jeff T. Watson

In Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Electronics Co., No. 15-1671 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 29, 2016), the Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction because there was substantial question as to whether the asserted claim was anticipated by the prior art.

Luminara sued Liown for infringing its patent covering flameless, light-flickering candles. Luminara moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Liown from making, using, or selling its own artificial candles. The district court found no substantial question of validity that would challenge Luminara’s likelihood of success and granted the injunction. In reaching its decision, the district court, based on embodiments shown in the specification, construed “free to pivot” to mean a moving body having four degrees of freedom, thereby distinguishing the claim over the closest prior art reference, which disclosed a body that moves in only two ways.

Continue reading

Tagged ,

Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct for Withholding Evidence and Failing to Correct Representations to PTO

Author: Kristi L. McIntyre
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

In Ohio Willow Wood v. Alps South, Nos. 2015-1132, -1133 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct.

OWW asserted infringement against Alps South, who sought reexamination of the claims. Appealing a rejection from the reexamination, OWW argued before the Board that certain testimony the examiner relied upon in making his rejection was uncorroborated. The Board agreed, reversing the examiner’s rejection and explaining that the examiner erred in crediting uncorroborated testimony, and the claims were confirmed.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , ,