PERMANENT INJUNCTION IS PERMISSIBLE SO LONG AS INFRINGING FEATURE IS ONE OF THE DRIVERS OF PRODUCT DEMAND

GENBAND US LLC v. METASWITCH NETWORKS CORP., Appeal No. 17-1148 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2017).  Before Lourie, Taranto, and Chen.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap).  (Permanent Injunction)
Background:

In a patent infringement suit filed by Genband against Metaswitch, a jury found that Metaswitch infringed various claims in several of Genband’s patents.  Following the jury verdict, Genband sought a permanent injunction, which was denied.  The district court held that a permanent injunction was not an appropriate remedy because Genband failed to show irreparable harm.  Specifically, Genband failed to show that a causal nexus exists between the alleged irreparable harm and the presence of the infringing features in Metaswitch’s infringing products.

Genband appealed the district court’s denial of the permanent injunction.

Issue/Holdings:

Did the district court correctly apply the appropriate legal standard in denying the permanent injunction?  (continue reading)

Summary by:  Vishak Ganesh

To view additional Federal Circuit decisions, please visit our Federal Circuit Case Summaries page.