Judge Brown granted part of the injunctive relief requested, finding that the plaintiffs had established all four requirements for a preliminary injunction relating to their Lanham Act claims as well as their breach of contract claim relating to the post-termination non-competition covenant.
Judge Gilstrap denied the request for a permanent injunction following a jury verdict of infringement, but granted an ongoing royalty at the rate agreed to between the parties.
Judge Gilstrap granted injunctive relief following trial, finding that all four factors were met. Good case if you’re looking at the availability of injunctive relief.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s product infringed on its high quality tequila sold in handmade ceramic decanters (and now I want one). In a lengthy, but damned interesting opinion the court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Judge Mazzant denied the request for injunctive relief.
One out of three’s not … well, maybe it is. And check out the forum selection comment.
In a brief order, Judge Hughes found the requirements for injunctive relief met.
First day back in the office after seeing sights like this for a couple of weeks. Somewhat less interesting, although possibly as rare is this order granting the request in this case involving counterfeit goods in a trademark and copyright infringement case.
This is another patent infringement case between two providers of drilling services.
Looks sorta like an injunction, but without the Section 285 fees.