Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Litigation
Motions for preliminary injunctions have become effective weapons in patent infringement litigation. One of the most important benefits to a patentee is quick relief, since a motion for preliminary injunction may be heard within weeks after a patent lawsuit is filed. Preliminary injunctions may also promote settlement, since if the injunction is granted, the effect can be devastating to a defendant. If the accused device or method is a central part of the defendant's business, an injunction may ruin the defendant financially. On the other hand, if the motion for preliminary injunction fails, a defendant may be much less willing to settle, since the defendant's invalidity and/or non-infringement positions may have been bolstered by denial of the preliminary injunction, not to mention the fact that the defendant's success was likely obtained at significant expense.
Indeed, the expense associated with a preliminary injunction can be considerable, depending on the local rules of the court. For example, in H.H. Robertson, the court conducted a 4-day mini-trial that included testimony of witnesses, briefings and arguments. H.H. Robertson Co. v. United Steel Deck, Inc., 820 F.2d 384 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Similarly, in Hybritech, the court permitted limited discovery in preparation for a 2-day hearing with briefing and argument. Hybritech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, in some courts, preliminary injunction hearings are limited to argument on the briefs, declarations and affidavits. No live testimony is permitted. See, e.g., Local Rules of N.D. Cal. It is therefore important to consult both local rules of court as well as local counsel before deciding to seek a preliminary injunction.
Another factor to consider is that if a preliminary injunction is granted, the patentee will be required to post bond as security for damages to the infringer in the event that the injunction is determined to be wrongfully granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Bond premiums can be substantial, easily running into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?