Category Archives: Injunction

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 Latches Onto Laches Defense

Author: Shawn S. Chang
Editor: Aaron Gleaton Clay

In SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 13-1564 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015), a divided en banc Federal Circuit held in a 6-5 decision that laches remains a defense to legal relief in a patent infringement suit, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), holding that laches is not a defense to a suit for damages under the Copyright Act.

At issue before the Court were two questions: Continue reading

Tagged , , , , ,

Injunctions Easier After Apple v. Samsung: Patented Features Simply Need to “Impact” Consumer’s Purchase

Author: Ming Wai Choy
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

In Apple v. Samsung Electronics, No. 2014-1802 (Fed. Cir. Sep 17, 2015), a split panel decision of the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s refusal to issue a permanent injunction against Samsung. According to the Court, all four factors set forth in eBay v. MercExchange were satisfied: (1) Apple suffered an irreparable harm with a causal nexus relating the alleged harm to the alleged infringement; (2) the remedy at law is inadequate to compensate Apple’s injury; (3) there is a balance of hardship; and (4) the public interest is not disserved by the injunction. Continue reading

Tagged ,