Preliminary relief can play a critical role in facilitating resolution of a patent infringement dispute. The Supreme Court's decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC (which dealt with permanent injunctions in patent cases) changed the legal landscape in the area of preliminary relief in the minds of many judges. Preliminary Relief in Patent Infringement Disputes examines the issues that are most important in seeking preliminary injunctive relief in a patent case and provides a pertinent review of how such injunction requests have been treated by the Federal Circuit and district courts since the important eBay decision. Beginning with an overview of how preliminary relief is addressed in patent and intellectual property cases, the balance of the book examines Federal Circuit cases and 112 selected district court cases to show how preliminary injunction requests have been treated since the Supreme Court's 2006 eBay decision. It identifies the judges in the Federal Circuit and district court cases and supplies tables identifying the Federal Circuit and the district court cases in chronological order.
| Acknowledgments |
|
v | |
|
|
|
1 | (34) |
|
|
|
3 | (5) |
|
I Should You Seek Preliminary Relief? |
|
|
8 | (4) |
|
A Strategic Considerations from the Business Perspective |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
B Strategic Considerations from the Legal Perspective |
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
|
|
10 | (1) |
|
2 Interplay with Preexisting Agreements/Arbitration |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
II What Type of Preliminary Relief Should You Seek? |
|
|
12 | (4) |
|
A Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) |
|
|
12 | (2) |
|
B Preliminary Injunctions |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
D Orders for Mandatory Injunctions |
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
|
|
15 | (1) |
|
III Pre-filing Considerations |
|
|
16 | (7) |
|
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
1 District Court Considerations |
|
|
16 | (1) |
|
2 Impact of Federal Circuit Appellate Jurisdiction |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
B Timing and Procedural Issues |
|
|
17 | (6) |
|
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
|
|
18 | (2) |
|
|
|
20 | (1) |
|
5 Impact of Reexamination |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
6 Is "Expedited" Discovery Needed? |
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
7 Evidentiary Hearings, Oral Arguments, and Markman Considerations |
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
IV Likelihood of Success on the Merits |
|
|
23 | (3) |
|
A The Shifting Burdens of Proof |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
|
26 | (5) |
|
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
1 Presumptions and Rebutting Them |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
4 Affirmative Proof of Harm That Is "Irreparable" |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
1 Hardship to Patent Owner |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
2 Hardship to Accused Infringer |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
1 Healthcare-Related Patents |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
2 Non-Healthcare-Related Patents |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
3 Non-Practicing Entities (Sometimes Called "Patent Trolls") |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
VI Post-filing Considerations |
|
|
31 | (4) |
|
A Scope of the Injunction |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
1 Strategic Relationship to Irreparable Harm, Balance of Hardships, and Damages |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
C Appeal/Trial Considerations |
|
|
33 | (2) |
|
Part II Federal Circuit Cases |
|
|
35 | (86) |
|
Part III Selected District Court Cases |
|
|
121 | (210) |
| Chronological Order of Federal Circuit Cases |
|
331 | (5) |
| Chronological Order of Circuit Cases |
|
336 | |
Robert H. Resis practices in the Chicago office of Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. He has over 25 years of experience in successfully representing clients in a wide variety of intellectual property matters. Mr. Resis' primary concentration is in trial and appellate work. Mr. Resis was part of the trial team in the successful litigation in Amgen Inc. vs. Chugai Pharmaceuticals, et al., a leading biotechnology patent case. He is also experienced in the procurement, counseling and licensing aspects of intellectual property rights and has successfully prosecuted patents in a variety of arts, including the chemical, medical device, and pharmaceutical arts. He has also effectively implemented the reexamination procedures of the Patent Office to the benefit of the firm's clients, including clients involved in litigation. Mr. Resis received his B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Between college and law school, he worked as a refinery process engineer at Chevron U.S.A. Mr. Resis earned his J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law.
