News

Case Summaries

Patent

[12/30] Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
District court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining defendant from selling its product after jury found willful infringement of plaintiff's valid patent. The court correctly applied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief, finding that: 1) plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury; 2) remedies at law were inadequate; 3) balance of hardships warranted issuance of injunctive relief; and 4) the public interest was not harmed by issuance of the permanent injunction, despite defendant's assertion that its infringing product was safer than plaintiff's product.

[12/29] In re TS Tech USA Corp.
In a patent infringement action relating to pivotally attached vehicle headrest assemblies, petition for writ of mandamus to vacate decision denying petitioner's motion to transfer venue and to direct district court to transfer case to another state is granted where: 1) petitioner met its difficult burden of establishing that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer of venue to the Southern District of Ohio; and 2) mandamus relief was appropriate.

[12/24] Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd.
In a patent infringement action, grant of plaintiff's motion judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) finding the patent was not invalid is reversed where: 1) the district court's denial of a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of witness, not skilled in the pertinent art, was an abuse of discretion; and 2) as a matter of law, claim 1 of the patent was invalid for obviousness.

Read More