November 9, 2022
Authored and Edited by Caitlin E. O'Connell; Esther H. Lim; Alex Park*
In ABC Corporation I v. Partnership & Unincorporated Associations, No. 21-2150 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 28, 2022), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s initial preliminary injunction and motion to amend. In a related appeal, ABC Corporation I v. Partnership & Unincorporated Associations, No. 22-1071 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 28, 2022), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s second preliminary injunction.
ABC Corporation sued several entities for infringement of four of its design patents through the sale of their hoverboards. The defendants were identified in Schedule A to the complaint. In November 2020, the district court entered a preliminary injunction against the then-named defendants. In May 2021, the district court granted ABC Corporation’s motion to amend Schedule A. The newly named defendants were thereby bound by the November 2020 injunction. In response to a motion to set aside the preliminary injunction for procedural defects, the district court permitted ABC Corporation to file a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction, which was granted in October 2021.
In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the underlying case arose under the patent laws and the Court has jurisdiction to address injunctions and orders “modifying” an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The Court then vacated the district court’s November 2020 injunction and the May 2021 motion to amend for failure to provide the notice required under Rule 65(a).
In the second appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in determining that ABC Corporation had shown a likelihood of success on the issue of infringement. Specifically, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court erred in four respects: (1) it applied the wrong legal standard in finding a likelihood of success merely because the products were not “sufficiently dissimilar” or “plainly dissimilar” from the patented design; (2) the district court failed to conduct the required three-way analysis comparing the accused product, the patented design, and the prior art; (3) the district court did not apply the ordinary observer test on a product-by-product basis; and (4) the language of the injunction is overbroad because it was not limited to the products actually found likely to infringe. The Court thus reversed and remanded.
*Alex Park is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
April 19, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.