• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Jane is suing Paul in Federal court for patent infringement of her water filter product. Jane hasrequested a Federal judge issue a preliminary injunction to prevent further damages of sales of her  product in the market. Paul claims his product is different from Jane’s and therefor noninfringing.What rule of law, standards and guidelines will a judge need to determine whether to grant Jane’srequest for a preliminary injunction?Under 35 U.S.C. S. § 283, the rule states “several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this titlemay grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any rightsecured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.”The party who is seeking a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement action is required to establishits right to a preliminary injunction in light of four factors: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on themerits; (2) irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted; (3) the balance of the hardships and (4)the impact of the injunction on the public interest. If the party clearly establishes the first factor bymaking a clear showing of both validity and infringement, it is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, 237 F.3d 1359, 1363, 57USPQ2d 1647, 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2001).An infringement analysis entails two steps. First, the meaning and scope of the asserted patent claims isdetermined, and then the properly construed claims are compared to the accused product or process.Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,138 F.3d 1448, 1454, 46 USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1998).Claim construction is a question of law reviewed
de novo
. Id. at 1456, 46 USPQ2d at 1174.Infringement, both literal and under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. Insituform Techs.,Inc. v. cat Contracting, Inc., 161 F.3d 688, 692, 48 USPQ2d 1610, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1998).In reviewing Jane’s infringement suit against Paul, a court typically relies on four specific standards indetermining the issuance of a preliminary injunction for patent infringement In Ranbaxy Pharms., Inc.v. Apotex, Inc., 350 F.3d 1235, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the court relied on four factors to determine acontinuance of a patent infringement claim stating “if the party clearly establishes the first factor of areasonable likelihood on the merits it is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm.” Thefirst factor the Ranbaxy court included was “making a clear showing of both validity and infringement.”Other factors include whether there will be irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted, the balanceof the hardships and the impact of the injunction on the public interest.Moreover, the burden of proof in a judge’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction for patentinfringement is extremely high. inCybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc.,138 F.3d 1448, 1454, 46 USPQ2d1169, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1998), a court specified the means of obtaining an accurate measurement of themerits of an infringement claim stating “An infringement analysis entails two steps. First, the meaningand scope of the asserted patent claims is determined, and then the properly construed claims are 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...