直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Finding of Bad Faith Requirement Necessary to Enjoin Patentee’s Ability to Make Allegations of Patent Infringement

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.

Tags

claim construction, declaratory judgment action, infringement, preliminary injunction

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Kathryn R. Judson
Associate
Atlanta, GA
(404) 653-6466
Email
Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email

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. 

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

IPBC Global 2026

June 15-17, 2026

San Diego

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP