Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / injunctive relief / royalty / Public interest beats patentee's right to injunction

Public interest beats patentee's right to injunction

- ,
The IPKat just noticed this note by Dave Healey on the PATENTMATH blog (to whom goes a grateful Katpat) about the decision Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 2010-1510 (Fed. Cir. February 10, 2012) that came out on 10 February from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.

Apparently, on the grounds of the public interest in competition in the medical device field, the CAFC refused a permanent injunction against the defendant, a competitor of the patentee/plaintiff.  Having found infringement of the patent, the only relief awarded was an ongoing equitable royalty.  There was apparently no finding of bad faith on the part of the patentee.

This Kat has nothing at present to add to the analysis by Dave Healey.  From his UK perspective, he is quite surprised that the US courts are apparently accepting in principle that a public interest in competition can reduce the remedies available to that of a reasonable royalty.
Public interest beats patentee's right to injunction Public interest beats patentee's right to injunction Reviewed by Darren Smyth on Monday, February 13, 2012 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. MaxDreiMonday, 13 February 2012 at 18:14:00 GMT

    Yet another 2:1 result at the CAFC. I am increasingly thinking that CAFC judging panels are doing this deliberately, to provoke discussion (and perhaps, as Healy surmises, en banc review).

    For more than 30 years now, The EPO has done it more elegantly. Different Boards of Appeal pursue different lines of legal logic till the issue is ripe, and then the Enlarged Board announces, (basta!), the settled line that all the TBA should henceforth follow.

    I think (not completely tongue in cheek) that Randall Rader CJ is jealous of DG3's 24 TBA,1000+ cases p.a. and its EBA. Has the AC invited him yet, to join the other national specialist patent law judges listed as members of the EBA?

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.