Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., AuthenTec accordingly requests a declaration from the Court that the ’168 patent is invalid and unenforceable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, AuthenTec respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against Atrua as follows: a) For judgment that Atrua has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘248 Patent, the ‘439 Patent, ‘526 Patent, the ‘679 Patent, and the ‘804 Patent; b) For preliminary and permanent injunctions under 35 U.S.C. § 283 against Atrua and its directors, officers, employees, agents, servants, subsidiaries, parents, successors, assigns, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert, on behalf of, in joint venture with, or in partnership with Atrua from further infringing acts; c) For damages to be paid by Atrua adequate to compensate AuthenTec for Atrua’s infringement, including interests, costs, and disbursements as the Court may deem appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 284; d) For judgment finding that Atrua’s infringement was willful and deliberate, entitling AuthenTec to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284; e) For judgment finding this to be an exceptional case, and awarding AuthenTec attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285; Case 3:08-cv-01423-PJH Document 35-2 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 20 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. C08-01423 PJH SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT & DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA NIKE, INC., Plaintiff, v. FUJIAN JIALAIMENG SHOES CO., LTD. and DAEAST-ASIA (FUJIAN) SPORTS PRODUCTION CO., LTD., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-00516 EMERGENCY EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND SEIZURE ORDER Plaintiff, NIKE, Inc. (“NIKE”) has moved ex parte for a Temporary Restraining Order, Seizure Order, and an Order for Preliminary Injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lanham Act Section 34 (15 U.S.C. § 1116), the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 283, and Local Rule 7-4. NIKE alleges that Defendants Fujian Jialaimeng Shoes Co., Ltd. and Daeast- Case 2:17-cv-00516-GMN-GWF Document 3-1 Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Asia (Fujian) Sports Production Co., Ltd. (collectively hereafter, “Jialaimeng”) have made, imported into the United States, sold, offered to sell, distributed, promoted, and/or advertised at the World Shoe Association (“WSA”) trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada, numerous shoes that infringe NIKE Design Patents and NIKE Trademarks.

1398 at 4 (emphasis added).) It did not set a schedule for seeking all equitable remedies pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283. Samsung ignores the plain language of the Court’s order and mischaracterizes Apple’s motion as a “second chance.”

Congress buttressed this right by providing that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. § 283; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. “Of course the axiomatic remedy for trespass on property rights is removal of the trespasser.”

’” Abbott Labs., 971 F.2d at 12 (quoting Lawson Prods., Inc. v. Avnet, Inc., 782 F.2d 1429, 1436 (7th Cir. 1986)).5 The Patent Act permits this Court to “grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. § 283. The Federal Circuit applies regional circuit law to supply the standard for the grant of preliminary injunctive relief and Federal Circuit law on issues specific to patent law.

The Toyota Defendants Are Adjudged Infringers of Paice’s Valid Patent Rights and Should Be Enjoined Against Further Infringing Conduct The most fundamental right of a patent-holder is the right to exclude others from practicing his invention; thus, the law has long observed that absent “exceptional circumstances” a permanent injunction should issue when infringement has been found. 35 U.S.C. § 283; MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert.

The Motion is supported by the accompanying Plaintiff's Memorandum of Reasons in Support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Against ViaCell, Inc. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, [Proposed] Order, and Declaration of Edward W. Little, Jr. (with attached exhibits). WHEREFORE plaintiff PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court allow its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant ViaCell, Inc. and provide PharmaStem such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.

The Motion is supported by the accompanying Plaintiff's Memorandum of Reasons in Support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Against ViaCell, Inc. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, [Proposed] Order, and Declaration of Edward W. Little, Jr. (with attached exhibits). WHEREFORE plaintiff PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court allow its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant ViaCell, Inc. and provide PharmaStem such other and further relief as this Court deems proper.

Therefore, the Court has the discretion to treble the rate under 35 U.S.C. § 284. II. ANALYSIS A. CAS Should Be Permanently Enjoined From Infringing the ‘262 Patent EcoServices requests that the Court enter a permanent injunction barring CAS from performing Cyclean jet engine washes in the U.S. 1. The Legal Standard For A Permanent Injunction Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction in a patent case must satisfy the traditional four-factor test by showing: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

1. YETI is Entitled to a Permanent Injunction YETI is entitled to a permanent injunction because Kuer is a willful infringer, is in default, and YETI has no adequate remedy at law. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1116; 35 U.S.C. § 283; Case 1:16-cv-00631-RP Document 13 Filed 10/27/16 Page 15 of 26 12 FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d); TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 16.103. In granting permanent injunctive relief to prevailing plaintiffs, district courts consider: (1) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (2) whether remedies at law are inadequate; (3) the balance of hardships between plaintiff and defendant; and (4) whether the public interest would be disserved by an injunction.