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.
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.