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
- 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.
- 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.
- The plaintiff did not raise a substantial question that claim 1 was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
- 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.
- The defendant satisfied the Winter factors and was entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Questions Presented
- 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.
- Whether the plaintiff raised a substantial question that the defendant's patent was invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
- 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.
- Whether the defendant established irreparable harm, a favorable balance of equities, and a public interest supporting a preliminary injunction.
- 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 PDFLoading document…