Patent News

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a preliminary injunction against a product, even though, the court found it to infringe in Serio-US Indus., Inc. v. Plastic Recovery Techs. Corp., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10074 (D.Md. June 5, 2003). Serio-US held a patent on an automatic dumpster lock and wanted to enjoin Plastic Recovery from showing an allegedly infringing prototype at a trade show. The court determined that the prototype device did infringe, but stated that the defendant could rebut the presumption of irreparable harm to the patentee. Evidence showing that the movant's market share dwarfed that of the non-movant, that there were several non-infringing competitors in the market, or that monetary damages could compensate for any actual harm suffered, was provided as examples of evidence that could rebut the presumption.

The court stated that because the defendant only had a prototype and had not actually entered the market, any harm to the plaintiff could be compensated by monetary damages. The court also noted that Serio-US had a substantial share of the marketplace and that there were several non-infringing competitors. The court held that “[t]he threatened harm by this limited exposure of a device that is not in production is, in the Court's belief, an insufficient basis on which to grant preliminary injunctive relief.”