§Why CasetextPricing

EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Permanent Injunction

22 Cited authorities

  1. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,977 times   136 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  2. Robert Bosch Llc v. Pylon Mfg. Corp..

    659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 210 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court erred in not finding irreparable harm when the parties were direct competitors, patentee showed lost market share and access to potential customers, and defendant lacked financial stability

  3. Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm

    543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 205 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the specification as a whole may serve to limit the claims by repeatedly characterizing the invention in a specific manner

  4. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.

    717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 154 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court's construction requiring a direct connection would exclude a preferred embodiment of the invention, where Figure 6 depicted lift frame connected to mounting frame via an intermediate removable hitch arm

  5. Abbott Lab. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals

    452 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 185 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the public interest is best served by denying a preliminary injunction when a party did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits

  6. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex

    470 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 173 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the patentee was likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of hardships and public interest supported the injunction

  7. Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Technical Ceramics Corp.

    702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 144 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[d]irect competition in the same market is certainly one factor suggesting strongly the potential for irreparable harm"

  8. Amado v. Microsoft

    517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)   Cited 162 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court should consider the parties' new economic circumstances when calculating damages for patent infringement taking place during a stay of an injunction

  9. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

    695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 139 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding "each" modified the phrase immediately following it

  10. Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.

    504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 125 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court did not violate patent owner’s right to a jury trial by calculating an "ongoing royalty rate" for patent infringement in a bench trial

  11. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,127 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

  12. Section 283 - Injunction

    35 U.S.C. § 283   Cited 823 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Providing for injunctive relief, treble damages, and—in “exceptional cases”—attorney’s fees as remedies for patent infringement