| Are courts in the Southern District of New York more inclined to grant preliminary injunctions in p |
|
 |
| Tuesday, 12 July 2005 | |||||||||||||
|
Are courts in the Southern District of New York more inclined to grant preliminary injunctions in patent infringement cases than courts in the District of Delaware? Short Answer: The Southern District of New York seems slightly more likely to grant preliminary injunctions in patent infringement cases, but there is no difference in the legal standards applied by the two jurisdictions. There is a slight difference in the courts’ attitudes towards the injunction: Delaware opinions more frequently emphasize that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, while New York courts more often emphasize the preponderance of the evidence standard for granting preliminary injunctions. It is possible that the difference in outcomes is mostly due to the different fact patterns facing the courts. The predominance of medical cases in Delaware tends to encourage attention to the public interest prong of the test, which often weighs against granting an injunction. I. The standard for granting a preliminary injunction is the same in both jurisdictions. a. Preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy b. Movant must demonstrate: i. Likelihood of success on the merits 1. validity a. patents entitled to presumption of validity, but if opponent raises “substantial question” as to validity, movant must show validity by preponderance of the evidence. b. Ways to show validity: i. Prior adjudication ii. The industry has accepted validity of patent for a long time. iii. Technical demonstration that the patent is valid. iv. Doctrine of patent marking estoppel: if a distributor has benefited from marking device with a patent number, he cannot later claim that the patent is invalid. 2. infringement a. literal infringement: every element of a claim is present in the accused product i. court must construe scope of patent, then apply to accused product. b. doctrine of equivalence: something designed to do the same thing in the same way can infringe a patent; can’t get around patent by making cosmetic changes. 3. standard: movant must show by preponderance of the evidence that opponent will not be able to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the patent is invalid or that no infringement occurred. ii. Irreparable injury 1. if validity + infringement shown by preponderance of evidence, presumption of irreparable injury. a. Presumption grows from the idea that the right to exclude is the main value of the patent. b. Rebutting the presumption: i. If opponent can show that patent holder has behaved in a way that suggests the right to exclude isn’t so important: for instance, he’s licensed the patent to major competitors, or he waited a long time to sue the infringer, then the presumption of irreparable harm can be rebutted. Delaware seems more likely than NY to do this. 2. if no presumption applies, then monetary injuries such as market share, lost profits are usually not irreparable; damages suffice. a. If the presumption attaches, then these monetary injuries are sometimes considered ‘irreparable’ iii. Balance of harms favoring plaintiff 1. not often analyzed; courts’ decisions seem to ride on i and ii. iv. Public interest does not counsel against the injunction 1. see II. II. Delaware courts seem to read the standard slightly more narrowly than S.D. N.Y. courts. a. Delaware courts seem to place more emphasis on the public interest element of the balancing test. One Delaware case even held that the presumption of irreparable harm was overridden because the patentholder could recover its losses through monetary damages and the public interest weighed so heavily against the injunction. b. Delaware courts seem to make it more difficult to get a presumption of irreparable harm by making it more difficult to satisfy the validity + infringement requirement c. New York courts explicitly say that a “limited review” is appropriate when i. Patent holder makes clear showing of validity + infringement 1. in that case, patent holder is entitled to rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm. 2. Delaware courts recognize this presumption, too, but never explicitly state that it calls for a “limited review” of the issue. ii. Patent holder fails to show either likelihood of success or irreparable harm 1. in that case, courts need not consider the balance of hardships or the public interest. 2. Delaware seems to do this, in practice, as well. III. Differences in the fact patterns facing the courts may account for any difference in the frequency of granting/denying preliminary injunctions. a. Most of the Delaware cases we have deal with medical products; the courts often recognize a strong public interest in either competition or stability in this context. The public interest factor will probably not be a strong issue in a patent case involving vacuum cleaners. b. New York courts have been more prone to weigh the relative size of a company when “balancing harms” under the test’s third prong, allowing injunctions when the patent-holder is small compared to the alleged infringer. [In the present case this would weigh in favor of an injunction against Maytag]
|
|||||||||||||
| Last Updated ( Thursday, 24 April 2008 ) | |||||||||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Services : E-mail news | 
RSS Feeds | Podcasts
Links: About the NVS | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies | Advertise With Us
All Rights Reserved. NigeriaVillageSquare.com
Posted by Robot| 28.04.2008 05:03