Category Archives: Injunction

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 ,

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 ,