§Why CasetextPricing

Bayer Schering Pharma AG et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

50 Cited authorities

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

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,799 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  2. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.

    52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)   Cited 5,127 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inventor testimony as to "[t]he subjective intent of the inventor when he used a particular term is of little or no probative weight in determining the scope of a claim (except as documented in the prosecution history)."

  3. Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Andrx Corp.

    369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,022 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “ ‘trademark infringement amounts to irreparable injury as a matter of law’ ” (quoting S & R Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 968 F.2d 371, 378 (3d Cir.1992))

  4. Vivid Technologies v. American Science

    200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999)   Cited 730 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that party opposing summary judgment must show either that movant has not established its entitlement to judgment on the undisputed facts or that material issues of fact require resolution by trial

  5. Novartis Consumer Health v. Johnson Johnson

    290 F.3d 578 (3d Cir. 2002)   Cited 543 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court erred "in finding that a message of superior efficacy is necessarily implied" by defendant's advertising and "[i]nstead, [plaintiff] should have been required to prove through a consumer survey that the name and advertising actually misled or had a tendency to mislead consumers"

  6. Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight

    882 F.2d 797 (3d Cir. 1989)   Cited 804 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that money damages for breach of contract, including loss of goodwill, would be provable because of lengthy relationship of the two companies and previous performance under the contract

  7. Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson Co.

    971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 625 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the defendant's description of its product as "rice-based," which in context was a "term of art used to describe oral electrolyte solutions made from rice grain powder," was literally false because the product contained "rice syrup solids" but not "powdered whole rice"

  8. BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P.

    498 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 293 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an actor is liable for infringement under § 271 if it acts through an agent or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method

  9. Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc.

    191 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1999)   Cited 365 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding prejudice where the defendant "could have invested its time and money in other areas or simply renamed its products" had the plaintiff brought suit sooner

  10. N.A Med Corp v. Axiom

    522 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2008)   Cited 247 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because defendant did not dispute that alleged infringement affected interstate commerce, appropriate inquiry was whether defendants used the mark in connection with the sale or advertising of any goods in a manner likely to confuse consumers

  11. Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65   Cited 22,449 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

  12. Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

    15 U.S.C. § 1125   Cited 15,291 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

  13. Section 271 - Infringement of patent

    35 U.S.C. § 271   Cited 6,048 times   1052 Legal Analyses
    Holding that testing is a "use"

  14. Section 1116 - Injunctive relief

    15 U.S.C. § 1116   Cited 2,715 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Granting district courts the "power to grant injunctions, according to principles of equity . . ., to prevent the violation of any right" of the trademark owner

  15. Section 284 - Damages

    35 U.S.C. § 284   Cited 2,074 times   194 Legal Analyses
    Granting "interest and costs as fixed by the court"

  16. Section 283 - Injunction

    35 U.S.C. § 283   Cited 801 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Providing for injunctive relief, treble damages, and—in “exceptional cases”—attorney’s fees as remedies for patent infringement