April 10, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Kevin D. Rodkey
In Myco Industries, Inc. v. BlephEx, LLC, No. 2019-2374 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining BlephEx from making allegations of patent infringement and from threatening Myco’s potential customers with litigation.
BlephEx owns U.S. Patent No. 9,039,718, which relates to an eye treatment using an electromechanical device. Myco alleged that BlephEx made infringement accusations against Myco’s product and to prospective Myco customers during an optometry trade show. Myco then sought declaratory judgment of noninfringement and a preliminary injunction barring BlephEx from “[m]aking false allegations that Myco’s [product] infringes the ’718 patent” and “making baseless threats against Myco’s medical-practitioner potential customers of [Myco’s product].” The district court granted Myco’s motion for a preliminary injunction. BlephEx appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, vacated, and remanded the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, holding that the court must find evidence of bad faith before a patent owner can be enjoined from communicating his patent rights. The Court explained that a bad faith finding must be supported by a finding that the infringement allegations were objectively baseless. The court also found that the district court’s claim construction limiting the claims to “treatment of posterior blepharitis” was incorrect because it was based on a description of BlephEx’s product, not properly applied claim construction principles. Because the district court had not found that BlephEx’s allegations were made in bad faith and applied an incorrect claim construction, the court reversed, vacated, and remanded.
Copyright © 2020 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.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.