Category Archives: Remedies

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 ,

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 ,

Lack of Jurisdiction Flatlines Pulse’s Appeal

Author: Razi Safi*
Editor: Lily Robinson

The Federal Circuit in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 16-2006 (May 26, 2017) held that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1292(c)(2) to hear an appeal from a district court’s order regarding prejudgment interest because it was not a “final decision.” The district court awarded Halo prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, and supplemental damages for direct infringement but did not set the total amount of prejudgment interest or the beginning date for interest calculations. Instead, it ordered Halo to prepare an updated calculation of the interest amounts. Pulse appealed the order to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit concluded, however, that because the district court had not resolved the parties’ dispute, the order was not a final decision imparting jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1). Moreover, the appeal was not proper under § 1292(c)(2), which provides an accounting exception to the finality requirement, because the prejudgment-interest award in the case was not final. Section 1292(c)(2), the Court noted, should be interpreted narrowly and thus does not allow the Court to hear an appeal arising from a non-final order, even if the order is related to the accounting. The Federal Circuit therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

 

*Razi Safi is a Summer Associate at Finnegan. Continue reading

Tagged