On February 3, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, holding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion or clearly err in its factual findings. Myco Industries, Inc. started marketing, the AB Max, a device for treating blepharitis in February 2019. The following month, BlephEx, LLC filed a patent application, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,449,087 (the ‘087 patent) on October 22, 2019. The ‘087 patent discloses “an instrument for removing debris from an eye during the treatment of an ocular disorder.” The day the ‘087 patent issued, BlephEx sued Myco in the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging that Myco’s AB Max infringed claim 16 of the ‘087 patent. Shortly thereafter, the district court enjoined “Myco and those acting on its behalf from, inter alia, selling, distributing, or offering to sell or distribute the AB Max Product.” Myco appealed.
- Recapping Abitron at the High Court: The Long Arm of the…Lanham Act?
- Why the Supreme Court Should Weigh in on CMI Violations Under the DMCA
- Precooked Bacon, Artificial Intelligence Patents, and a Defense of the Common Law
- SCOTUS Kills Hope for Eligibility Certainty and Nixes Teva’s ‘Skinny Label’ Appeal
- Newman Says Moore’s Order Alleging She is Unfit for Court is ‘Riddled with Errors’
- Iancu Agrees Key USPTO ANPRM Proposals Should be Handled by Congress
- The Intersection of NILS, NFTS, AI Creations, Big Data, and the Metaverse
- Understanding IP Matters: AI Bots, Creators, and Copyright — Learning to Live Together
- Clause 8: Joff Wild on Founding IAM for Chief IP Officers and EU Commission’s Anti-SEP Crusade
- UKIPO Issues New Trademark Guidance on NFTs, the Metaverse and Virtual Goods