![]() ![]() In addition, the record contains relevant prior art not considered by the PTO, namely, Abstract 19, with respect to which the district court made no findings. Thus, where a patentee "clearly shows" that his patent is valid and infringed, a court may, after a balance of all the competing equities, preliminarily enjoin another from violating the rights secured by the patent. We are dealing with a provisional remedy which provides equitable preliminary relief. Requiring a "final adjudication," "full trial," or proof "beyond question" would support the issuance of a permanent injunction and nothing would remain to establish the liability of the accused infringer. ![]() 1985), while rejecting a requirement that the patentee must establish validity "beyond question," the court held:The burden upon the movant should be no different in a patent case than for other kinds of intellectual property, where, generally, only a "clear showing" is required. However, at the preliminary injunction stage, because of the extraordinary nature of the relief, the patentee carries the burden of showing likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the patent's validity, enforceability, and infringement. The presumption of validity of a patent is a procedural device that places the burden of going forward and the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial on one attacking the validity of a patent. In the proceedings below, Thorne raised substantive issues respecting the validity and enforceability of the '927 patent based on evidence of record.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |