9878866 Canada Inc. v. Intake Breathing Technology, LLC

Civil Action No. 25-2443 (RBW) (D.D.C. Apr. 27, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · April 27, 2026 · No. Civil Action No. 25-2443 (RBW)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia considers Intake Breathing Technology, LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction in a patent dispute involving disposable magnetic nasal-strip refill products. The court analyzes likelihood of infringement and patent validity under the preliminary-injunction standard, along with irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest. The excerpt indicates that the court granted the defendant’s motion.

Holdings

  1. The court had personal jurisdiction over the parties and the defendant's patent-infringement counterclaim because the plaintiff consented by filing suit and the defendant waived its personal-jurisdiction objection.
  2. The defendant was likely to prove that the accused product directly infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969 and therefore was also likely to prove infringement of claims 2 through 18, which depend on or refer to claim 1.
  3. The plaintiff did not raise a substantial question that claim 1 was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
  4. The plaintiff did not raise a substantial question that the defendant's patent was invalid for obviousness based on the Macken patent and the Riach patent application.
  5. The defendant satisfied the Winter factors and was entitled to a preliminary injunction.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant was likely to prove that the plaintiff's accused product infringed claim 1, and consequently claims 2 through 18, of U.S. Patent No. 9,510,969.
  2. Whether the plaintiff raised a substantial question that the defendant's patent was invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
  3. Whether the plaintiff raised a substantial question that the defendant's patent was invalid for obviousness in view of the Macken patent and the Riach patent application.
  4. Whether the defendant established irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and a public interest supporting a preliminary injunction.
  5. Whether the defendant's assertion of the counterclaims and the plaintiff's filing of the action established or waived personal-jurisdiction objections.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (43)

  • Trebro Mfg., Inc. v. Firefly Equip., LLC, 748 F.3d 1159, 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 24 (2008)(followed)
  • Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987)(followed)
  • Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808-09 (1988)(followed)
  • Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co., 284 U.S. 448, 451 (1932)(followed)
  • Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24, 32-33 (D.C. Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Rates Technology Inc. v. Nortel Networks Corp., 399 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 703 (1982)(followed)
  • Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp., 846 F.3d 1190, 1202-03, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • BlephEx, LLC v. Myco Industries, Inc., 24 F.4th 1391, 1398-99, 1403 (Fed. Cir. 2022)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 43.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…