Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Court's Denial, and Federal Circuit Appellate Opinion: Irreparable Harm

 As with its validity argument, Apple grouped all the patents together while discussing irreparable harm. Its motion for a preliminary injunction had one large section on the irreparable harm prong, but it discussed irreparable harm very generally. Thus, Apple did not have irreparable harm arguments that were specific to the D’087 patent. Rather, Apple applied the same loss of consumer goodwill and loss of market share arguments to D’087 as it did for D’677. Please see the irreparable harm of D’677 patent for an in depth analysis of Apple’s irreparable harm arguments.

Again, similar to its rejection of irreparable harm in the case of the D’677 patent, the district court ultimately rejected Apple’s D’087 irreparable harm argument on the basis of Apple’s failure to establish a causal nexus between the alleged D’087 infringement and the alleged harms.

The Federal Circuit also viewed the D’087 irreparable harm analysis as being “identical” to the D’677 irreparable harm analysis (Federal Circuit Opinion at 23). Since the Federal Circuit affirmed the court’s analyses of no irreparable harm from D’677 infringement, the no irreparable harm finding would also apply to the D’087. Consequently, the Federal Circuit also affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny an injunction against the two accused cell phones based on the D’087 patent.

Please see the previous post Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Court's Denial, and Federal Circuit Appellate Opinion: Reasonable Likelihood of Success for a more in depth analysis of the court’s opinion.

For more on business litigation visit http://www.pattersonlawfirm.com/ or call 312-223-1699 to speak with one of our Chicago law firm attorneys.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.emergencybusinesslitigation.com/admin/trackback/290376
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end