trademark
Jane is suing Paul in Federal court for patent infringement of her water filter product. Jane has requested 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’s request for a preliminary injunction?
Under 35 U.S.C. S. § 283, the rule states “several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured 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 establish its right to a preliminary injunction in light of four factors: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (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 by making 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, 57 USPQ2d 1647, 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
An infringement analysis entails two steps. First, the meaning and scope of the asserted patent claims is determined, 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
Under 35 U.S.C. S. § 283, the rule states “several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured 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 establish its right to a preliminary injunction in light of four factors: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (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 by making 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, 57 USPQ2d 1647, 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
An infringement analysis entails two steps. First, the meaning and scope of the asserted patent claims is determined, 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