Tag Archives: Permanent Injunctions

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 ,

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 ,