If you need to know the procedural steps for obtaining a TRO, extending it, and then obtaining a preliminary injunction, this is a pretty good primer.
A case involving suspension of a provider’s Medicare reimbursement payments generated three orders on motions to dismiss, to seal and for injunctive relief from the EDTX’ new judge in Beaumont.
This question and more are answered in the attached order resolving a motion to dismiss in a pharmaceutical case asserting (1) lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) improper venue; and (3) the first to file rule.
I have posted many times on the Tinnus v. Telebrands litigation, which involves water balloon patents. Another order is now out, this time involving postverdict motions including recovery of enhanced damages and attorneys fees for “exceptional” case status, as well as and entry of a permanent injunction. It is one readers will want to study, as it contains some actions that are extraordinary – even by patent litigation standards. When a court’s order uses the term “flagrantly” multiple times, you know things are about to get very interesting. There is much to be learned here, so let’s begin …
I’m sorry – I just can’t hear about a court “sitting in equity” without wondering whether everyone needs to reach in their briefcase and find their wigs. (I realize a few may already have them on, and guys, your secret – such as it is – is safe with me). That’s probably not quite what it looked like in Judge Mazzant’s courtroom in Sherman when he pressed “enter” to paste his electronic signature on the opinion in this interesting Lanham Act case dealing with remedies. But a good exposition of the law is always welcome, so let’s see what happened here.
Changes in the patent docket locally in the last year and a half or so have meant more trials involving competitors – which means different issues regarding remedies. A “post verdict docket control order” order issued earlier today in such a case provides a look at what sorts of proceedings are normal in such cases after a verdict.
I wanted to provide a brief update for those interesting in recent activity in the Ezekiel Elliott case pending before Judge Mazzant in Sherman.
While the case is interesting to many due to its subject matter, the Court’s most recent order provides a helpful and potential useful analysis not just of injunctive relief, but of review of an arbitrator’s decision for “fundamental fairness.”
Yesterday’s hearing on whether the NFL’s six-game suspension against Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott would be enjoined or stayed has concluded, and Judge Mazzant promised the parties a ruling Friday. But because of the timing, the NFL agreed during the hearing that the pending suspension would not start until after Sunday’s season opener, regardless of the Court’s ruling. The proceedings before Judge Mazzant in the the two and a half hour hearing focused on whether the proceedings were fundamentally unfair. The Court will decide if 1) there is a substantial chance of success on the merits for the NFLPA and Elliott; 2) there is a substantial threat of immediate and irreparable harm for which there is no remedy of law; 3) if there is a substantial threat of greater injury from not granting the injunctive relief than from granting it; and 4) whether the injunctive relief will disserve the public interest.
It’s rare to see injunctive relief granted at the outset of a patent case, and this report and recommendation and order granting explains why.
A few weeks ago I posted on Judge Payne’s report and recommendation recommending that the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction be granted. Judge Schroeder has now adopted the report and recommendation, finding that the defendant had not raised a substantial question regarding noninfringement of the asserted patents or the validity of the asserted patents. The order also found the reports conclusion consistent with other courts that had evaluated the causal nexus requirement in the context of pharmaceutical products, and that the report had identified “hallmark examples” of irreparable harm, which were “more than adequately supported by the record evidence.” The defendants were ordered to submit a brief of no more than five pages providing its position on the amount of an appropriate injunction bond within 14 days, and plaintiff was ordered to file a response within seven days after service of that brief. 216cv491 RWS Mylan Updated OA for PI