Preliminary Injunction Archives

Preliminary Injunction

A prescription for liability: Injunction in gray-market drug case based on material differences

by Ian J. Howard | Aug 27, 2026 | Life Sciences, Trademarks

Affirming a preliminary injunction, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that companies importing foreign-market pharmaceuticals for domestic patients were likely liable for trademark infringement, and that healthcare administrators and pharmacy benefit managers that continued facilitating those transactions despite reason to know of the infringement were likely liable for contributory infringement. Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Meritain Health, Inc., Case No. 25-1828 (4th Cir. Aug. 13, 2026) (Agee, Harris, Keenan, JJ.)

Gilead sued a group of companies involved in filling US patient prescriptions for the HIV drug Biktarvy® with a Gilead-branded version of the drug intended for Turkey. Gilead alleged that the defendants’ importation and distribution of the Turkish-market product infringed its trademarks under the Lanham Act. In addition to suing companies directly involved in sourcing and supplying the prescriptions, Gilead sued Meritain Health, the third-party administrator of the relevant healthcare plan, and ProAct, a pharmacy benefit manager, for contributory infringement.

Shortly after filing suit, Gilead moved for a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from importing gray-market versions of Biktarvy®. The district court granted the requested relief, finding that Gilead had demonstrated a likelihood of success on its direct infringement claims against certain defendants and its contributory infringement claims against others. Meritain, ProAct, and the other defendants appealed.

The defendants first argued that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) precluded Gilead’s Lanham Act claims. Although the Turkish version of Biktarvy® was not US Food and Drug Administration approved, Gilead did not premise its trademark claims on that fact. The Fourth Circuit therefore concluded that adjudicating Gilead’s claims did not require enforcement or interpretation of the FDCA.

The defendants also challenged the district court’s likelihood-of-confusion finding, emphasizing that Gilead itself manufactured the Turkish version of Biktarvy® and that the product bore authentic Gilead trademarks. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, explaining that goods bearing a genuine trademark may nevertheless be considered nongenuine for trademark purposes if they materially differ from the authorized domestic product or are sold outside the trademark owner’s quality-control procedures.

Although the Turkish and US versions of Biktarvy® were chemically identical, the Fourth Circuit found material differences between them. Among other things, the Turkish product contained foreign-language labeling and lacked certain warnings and patient information provided with the US version. The Turkish product also was not transported through Gilead’s quality-control system. Those differences were sufficient to support the district court’s finding of material differences.

The Fourth Circuit also rejected Meritain and ProAct’s challenges to the contributory infringement ruling. The Court explained that contributory infringement does not require actual knowledge of another party’s infringement. Liability may arise where a defendant knew or should have known of the infringement and nevertheless continued supplying products or services that facilitated it.

The Fourth Circuit further rejected Meritain and ProAct’s argument that contributory infringement required proof that they exercised control over the direct infringers. In doing so, the Court declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s control requirement. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that even if [...]

Continue Reading

Unplugged: Claim construction errors, presumption of harm short-circuit preliminary injunction

by Yuhe Liu, PhD | Aug 13, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction, finding that the district court improperly imported a spatial limitation into the claim term “backplate” and erroneously treated the structural term “pin” as a means-plus-function limitation. The Court also reiterated that in preliminary injunction proceedings, a strong showing of validity and infringement does not give rise to a presumption of irreparable harm. Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLC, Case No. 25-1121 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2026) (Moore, C.J.; Prost, J.; Seeborg, Distr.J. (sitting by designation)).

Socket Solutions owns a patent directed to an indoor electrical outlet cover designed to conceal an outlet’s contact openings while permitting continued use of the outlet. Socket Solutions sued Import Global, alleging that Import Global’s Neat Socket product infringed. Socket Solutions also moved for a preliminary injunction. Adopting a magistrate judge’s reports and recommendations, the district court granted the injunction, barring Import Global from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the accused product. Import Global appealed.

The Federal Circuit first addressed the district court’s construction of “backplate.” The district court construed the term as the component of the cover opposite the frontplate that included at least one set of electrical prongs. Import Global argued that the backplate instead referred to the portion of the cover closest to the wall outlet.

The Federal Circuit rejected both constructions because each imposed a spatial relationship not required by the specification. Looking to the written description, the Court explained that the backplate was used to define the thickness of the outlet cover. The Court therefore construed “backplate” as the component that, together with the frontplate, formed the cover such that the cover’s maximum thickness was measured between the frontplate and that component at the cover’s central portion. The Court also declined to require the backplate itself to include electrical prongs. Because the asserted claim separately recited that limitation, incorporating it into the construction of “backplate” would improperly render other claim language superfluous.

The Federal Circuit next concluded that the district court erred by construing “pin” as a means for making an electrical connection between a wire and a corresponding prong, effectively treating the term as a means-plus-function limitation under Section 112(f). Because the claim did not use the word “means,” the presumption against application of Section 112(f) applied. The Court found that the presumption was not overcome because the specification described a “pin” structurally, and the parties agreed that a skilled artisan would understand a pin to identify structure.

The Federal Circuit rejected Socket Solutions’ proposed purely functional construction as too broad because not every structure capable of connecting a wire to a prong is necessarily a pin. It likewise rejected Import Global’s proposed “mechanical system” construction as unsupported by the specification. Finding neither lexicography nor disavowal, the Court concluded that “pin” should receive its plain and ordinary meaning.

Finally, the Federal Circuit addressed the district court’s irreparable harm analysis. Although the Court did not decide whether Socket Solutions had established irreparable harm, [...]

Continue Reading

Construing claims to fit the brand

by Ian J. Howard | Jul 9, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s claim construction and grant of a preliminary injunction, concluding that an accused infringer’s proposed construction would have produced the “highly improbable” result of excluding the patentee’s Orange Book-listed drug from the scope of the asserted claims. Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, Case No. 25-2016 (Fed. Cir. July 1, 2026) (Bryson, Stoll, JJ.) (Dyk, J., dissenting in part)

Otsuka sued Hetero Labs, alleging that Hetero Labs’ generic drug product would infringe Otsuka’s patent rights. Otsuka moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Hetero Labs from entering the market. The district court granted the motion, concluding that Otsuka was likely to succeed on its infringement claim. Hetero Labs appealed, arguing that the district court erred in construing the asserted claims.

The central dispute concerned how to calculate the patent’s claimed weight ratio. The representative claim requires administering dextromethorphan in combination with quinidine, with the proviso that the “weight to weight ratio of dextromethorphan to quinidine is 1:0.5 or less.” The district court construed “dextromethorphan” and “quinidine” to include their pharmaceutically acceptable salts. Under that construction, the claimed ratio is calculated using the full weight of the compounds as administered – for example, the full weight of dextromethorphan hydrobromide rather than only the dextromethorphan active moiety. Hetero Labs, by contrast, argued that when the compounds are administered as salts, the ratio must be calculated using only the weight of the active moieties.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction, concluding that the intrinsic evidence supported construing “dextromethorphan” and “quinidine” to include both the free base compounds and their pharmaceutically acceptable salts. The Court found that the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history consistently used those terms to encompass the compounds in the form in which they are administered. The Court also found that extrinsic evidence supported its construction. Relying in part on its 2007 decision in Osram GmbH v. ITC, the Court explained that Hetero Labs’ proposed construction would produce the “highly improbable” result of excluding Otsuka’s Orange Book-listed Nuedexta product – the very product the patent was intended to protect – from the scope of the claims. The Court also rejected Hetero Labs’ indefiniteness argument, concluding that the claims were not rendered indefinite simply because they encompassed formulations using either free bases or pharmaceutically acceptable salts.

Judge Dyk, dissenting in part, concluded that the district court’s construction was inconsistent with both the intrinsic evidence and the purpose of the claimed invention. According to Judge Dyk, the invention depended on maintaining a specific ratio of dextromethorphan to quinidine to ensure that:

Dextromethorphan achieved a therapeutic effect
Quinidine slowed the metabolism of dextromethorphan
Patients were not exposed to excessive amounts of quinidine

In his view, calculating the claimed ratio using the full weight of pharmaceutically acceptable salts rather than only the active moieties distorted that relationship by incorporating the weight of carrier ions that have no therapeutic significance. Judge Dyk also disagreed with the majority’s reliance [...]

Continue Reading

Muddy paws? Franchisor’s unclean hands precludes full equitable relief

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Apr 2, 2026 | Trade Secrets, Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s partial denial of a franchisor’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the franchisor’s inequitable conduct barred broader injunctive relief, even where the franchisor showed a likelihood of success on certain claims. Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. v. Atomic Pawz Inc., Case No. 25-1638 (6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2026) (Gibbons, Larsen, Murphy, JJ.)

Fetch! sued several former franchisee locations for breach of contract, trademark infringement, and trade secret misappropriation after the franchisees stopped paying royalties, downloaded client contact information, prepared transition plans, and continued operating competing businesses following termination of system access. Fetch! sought a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction to bar operation of the competing businesses, use of alleged trade secrets, infringement of its registered trademarks, and interference with its business relationships.

The district court granted limited relief prohibiting use of Fetch!’s trademarks and restricting communications with existing Fetch! franchisees but declined to enjoin the defendants from continuing to operate competing businesses. The court concluded that although Fetch! was likely to succeed on certain claims, equitable relief was limited by Fetch!’s own conduct, including evidence that it aggressively marketed and sold its “2.0” franchise model while obscuring material differences from its legacy “1.0” model, and that it cut off certain franchisees’ system access under disputed circumstances. Fetch! appealed.

The Sixth Circuit emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy and that equitable doctrines, including unclean hands, may independently bar relief. The Court agreed that the record supported a finding that Fetch!’s conduct in marketing and selling its 2.0 and managed-services franchises (particularly Fetch!’s removal of distinctions in disclosure materials and aggressive profitability representations) could constitute bad faith sufficient to deny broader injunctive relief.

The Sixth Circuit also addressed the three legacy 1.0 franchisees for which the district court had not applied unclean hands. Affirming on an alternative ground, the Court found that unclean hands likewise barred injunctive relief as to those defendants. The Court relied on evidence that Fetch! terminated or restricted their system access while they were current on payments and before they began operating competing businesses, and that Fetch! may have failed to comply with applicable state franchise law requirements governing notice and opportunity to cure.

Although it affirmed on unclean hands, the Sixth Circuit clarified aspects of its preliminary injunction jurisprudence:

It rejected the district court’s suggestion that a heightened showing of irreparable harm applies when claims are subject to arbitration, confirming that the traditional four-factor test governs.
It found that the district court erred in applying a clear-and-convincing standard for irreparable harm rather than the federal standard requiring a likelihood of irreparable injury.
It explained that competitive harms, such as loss of goodwill and customer relationships, can qualify as irreparable precisely because they are difficult to quantify.

Because Fetch!’s inequitable conduct supported denial of broader relief, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s refusal to enjoin the defendants’ competing operations while leaving in place the narrower [...]

Continue Reading

Victory lap: Extraterritorial injunction permitted for breach of settlement agreement

by Kavya Rallabhandi | Jul 24, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a permanent injunction, concluding that the district court properly determined that a party’s violation of a settlement agreement would lead to irreparable harm. Wudi Industrial (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Wong, Case No. 24-1186 (4th Cir. July 11, 2025) (King, Gregory, Rushing, JJ.)

The dispute originated in 2017 when Wudi registered the trademark GTRACING with the US Patent & Trademark Office. Wai L. Wong, asserting prior use of the similar mark GT OMEGA RACING, initiated cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. In 2020, the Board ruled in Wong’s favor. Wudi sought review in the Eastern District of Virginia under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b), and Wong counterclaimed for trademark infringement.

In May 2021, the parties entered into a confidential global concurrent-use settlement agreement resolving their litigation. Under the agreement, Wudi was permitted to use GTRACING globally, except in designated regions including multiple European countries. Critically, paragraph 6(b) of the agreement prohibited Wudi from using the phrases “GTRACING” or “GT RACING” in online advertising or social media within the European carve-out. The district court subsequently granted a stay of the dispute pending compliance by the parties.

Following the compliance period, Wong alleged that Wudi violated the agreement by using prohibited terms in online marketing within the restricted regions. The district court granted Wong’s motion to enforce the agreement, ordering Wudi to remove specific content and cease future violations. The district court warned that continued noncompliance could result in contempt proceedings.

Wudi appealed, and the Fourth Circuit initially remanded the case, instructing the district court to apply the four-factor eBay test for injunctive relief. The district court found that Wudi had breached the agreement and that Wong had suffered irreparable harm to the goodwill of its marks. The court concluded that monetary damages were inadequate, the balance of hardships favored Wong, and enforcing the agreement served the public interest. The district court issued a permanent injunction. Wudi appealed again.

Wudi challenged the injunction on multiple grounds, including claims of extraterritorial overreach, improper application of the eBay factors, erroneous breach findings, exclusion of parol evidence, failure to apply the unclean hands doctrine, and improper award of attorneys’ fees.

The Fourth Circuit rejected Wudi’s arguments and affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Court held that the injunction merely enforced contractual obligations voluntarily undertaken by Wudi and that the district court properly applied the eBay test. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of parol evidence and its rejection of the unclean hands defense, finding that the district court properly concluded that reputational harm can demonstrate that irreparable injury will flow from the breach of a trademark-related settlement agreement.

Eye-Catching: Biosimilars Injunction Prevails

by Courtney Seams | Feb 6, 2025 | Patents

Addressing a preliminary injunction in patent litigation related to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that there was a proper exercise of personal jurisdiction and that no substantial question of invalidity had been raised for the patents at issue that would prevent the injunction from issuing. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 24-1965 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

Regeneron holds a Biologics License Application for Eylea®, a therapeutic product containing aflibercept (a VEGF antagonist used in various treatments for eye diseases). Regeneron owns multiple patents related to its Eylea® product, including a patent directed to intravitreal injections using VEGF formulations. Mylan, Samsung Bioepis (SB), and other companies filed abbreviated Biologics License Applications (aBLAs) with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking approval to market Eylea® biosimilars. Regeneron brought suit against these parties asserting infringement of its patent and filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

The district court granted the preliminary injunction against SB, enjoining it from offering for sale or selling the subject of its aBLA without a license from Regeneron. SB appealed, arguing that:

The exercise of personal jurisdiction over it was improper.
There was a substantial question of invalidity of the patent under either obviousness-type double patenting or lack of adequate written description.
There was no causal nexus established.

The Federal Circuit upheld the exercise of personal jurisdiction on SB, finding that SB had minimum contacts with the state of West Virginia. SB is headquartered in South Korea and entered into a development and commercialization agreement with Biogen for a biosimilar to Eylea®, SB15, that gives SB continuing rights and responsibilities as the agreement is implemented. The Court found that SB did not have to distribute the product itself under the agreement for it to be subject to personal jurisdiction. Further, the Court found that SB’s aBLA and internal documentation indicated an intent to distribute SB15 US-wide, which was sufficient to establish intent to distribute the product in West Virginia.

The Federal Circuit also upheld the district court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. SB invoked another patent in the same family as the asserted patent that was directed to an intravitreal injection containing a VEGF trap as the reference patent for an obviousness-type double patenting theory. The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s findings that the stability requirement, the “glycosylated” requirement, and the “vial” limitations in the claims of the asserted patent were all patentably distinct from the reference patent. The Court found that the stability requirement recited in the asserted patent was more specific than, and not inherent within, the reference patent. The Court further agreed that the reference patent embraced both non-glycosylated and glycosylated aflibercept, not only the glycosylated aflibercept contained in the asserted patent claims.

The Federal Circuit then addressed SB’s arguments that the specification lacked sufficient written description for the claimed [...]

Continue Reading

Pre-Markman Claim Construction Is OK, Within Limits

by Sydney E. McDermott | Oct 31, 2024 | Patents

In an appeal stemming from the denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the complaint, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified its precedent and explained that a district court may construe claims at the motion to dismiss Rule 12(b)(6) stage, but only to the extent necessary to decide the motion. UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., Case No. 23-1435 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

UTTO sued Metrotech in the US District Court for the Northern District of California for patent infringement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California law. UTTO also moved for a preliminary injunction. The asserted patent describes and claims methods for detecting and identifying “buried assets,” which refers to underground utility lines. The district court denied the preliminary injunction because of UTTO’s failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits for infringement based on the district court’s construction. The district court adopted a construction of the term “group” as requiring at least two data points per buried asset. The district court then dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted but allowed UTTO to amend, explaining that infringement of the claims as construed at the preliminary injunction stage was not pled.

UTTO then filed an amended complaint, which the district court also dismissed, noting that UTTO failed to plead facts supporting infringement of other limitations under the claim construction issued at the preliminary injunction stage. The district court again granted UTTO leave to amend, which UTTO did. But the district court dismissed that third complaint as well, this time with prejudice, citing the claim construction in its order at the preliminary injunction stage.

On appeal, UTTO (citing 2018 Federal Circuit precedent Nalco v. Chem-Mod) challenged the district court’s claim construction and its reliance on a claim construction in an order denying summary judgment to dismiss a complaint. The Federal Circuit explained that claim construction by a district court “to resolve . . . particular claim construction issues in [a] case” may be necessary and is not categorically barred at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. The Court explained that there is a “logical relationship of claim construction” between “infringement and the normal function of courts deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” An infringement analysis first requires an analysis of the scope and meaning of the claims asserted and then the “properly construed claims” are compared to the accused device or method. Often, claims are construed based on intrinsic evidence alone, which the Federal Circuit concluded “is not different in kind from the interpretation of other legal standards, which is proper and routine in ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6).” As an example, the Court cited its routine dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) in connection with motions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The Federal Circuit cautioned that not all claim construction issues need to be construed at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, but only those issues necessary to decide a [...]

Continue Reading

Hot Mess? Second Circuit Douses Injunction Based on Weak Mark

by Kathleen Lynch | May 2, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion based on an erroneous evaluation of the strength of the “inherently descriptive” marks at issue. City of New York v. Henriquez, Case No. 23-325 (2d Cir. Apr. 16, 2024) (Livingston, CJ; Walker, Carney, JJ.)

Juan Henriquez is a first responder with the Fire Department of New York (FDNY). Henriquez began organizing what he called “medical special operations conferences” (MSOCs) around the United States. In New York, he partnered with the FDNY. Six years into organizing with the FDNY, the relationship soured. Henriquez then applied to register “Medical Special Operations Conference” as a trademark. The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) rejected his application on the basis that the mark was merely descriptive. Henriquez amended his application under § 2(f) of the Lanham Act, which allows registration of descriptive marks that have been used on a “substantially exclusive and continuous basis” for at least five years. The PTO agreed to register his mark.

The FDNY and the City of New York brought suit, seeking to cancel Henriquez’s trademark. Henriquez counterclaimed for trademark infringement of his registered “Medical Special Operations Conference” mark and the related unregistered mark “MSOC”. The district court granted Henriquez a preliminary injunction and barred the FDNY from using “medical,” “special” and “operations” in its branding. The FDNY appealed.

The FDNY raised two issues on appeal: did the district court abuse its discretion by enjoining the FDNY’s use of the marks, and alternatively, did the district court grant an “overbroad” injunction?

The Second Circuit agreed with the FDNY on the first injunction issue and therefore did not reach the second.

The Second Circuit requires analysis of the eight “likelihood of confusion” factors under Polaroid when considering a preliminary injunction. While no one factor is dispositive, the strength of a mark “is especially important,” and therefore the Court is “reluctant to affirm any preliminary injunction founded upon an erroneous strength analysis.”

The Second Circuit found three “missteps” that led the district court to commit legal error by improperly categorizing Henriquez’s two marks as “at least strongly suggestive,” when in fact the marks were inherently descriptive.

First, the Second Circuit explained that the district court did not properly consider Henriquez’s past concessions about his marks. Henriquez registered his mark under § 2(f) of the Lanham Act – conceding descriptiveness. Henriquez also argued to the district court that both of his marks were valid based on secondary meaning, which is only necessary for descriptive marks. Because “[w]hat parties say about their marks matters,” the district court was wrong to ignore admissions of descriptiveness.

Second, the Second Circuit found that the district court did not properly consider the PTO’s characterization of the marks as descriptive. Courts should “accord great weight to the PTO’s conclusions” and only decline to follow those conclusions “for compelling reasons.” The Court noted that the PTO initially rejected Henriquez’s application and only granted registration under § 2(f), which [...]

Continue Reading

Don’t Assume Sweet Success: Forum Selection Clause Doesn’t Preclude IPR

by Thomas DaMario | Jan 11, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to bar a petitioner from challenging certain patents at the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) because of a forum selection clause in a settlement agreement. The Court found that the patent owner was unlikely to succeed on the merits based on the likelihood of success factor. DexCom, Inc. v. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Case No. 23-1795 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2024) (Dyk, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.)

DexCom and Abbott are competing manufacturers of continuous glucose monitoring systems. In 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement that included a cross-license to certain patents, covenants not to sue or challenge the patents for a “Covenant Period,” and a forum selection clause identifying the US District Court for the District of Delaware as the exclusive jurisdiction “over any dispute arising from or under or relating to [the] Agreement, to the extent permitted by law.” After expiration of the Covenant Period, DexCom sued Abbott in the Western District of Texas. Abbott moved to transfer the case to the District of Delaware and added a breach of contract counterclaim, citing the settlement agreement’s forum selection clause. The case was transferred to Delaware, after which Abbott filed eight petitions for inter partes review (IPR) at the PTO. DexCom responded to the breach of contract counterclaim by alleging that Abbott had breached the forum selection clause by filing the IPR petitions. Until this point, DexCom had consistently taken the position that the asserted claims were not subject to the cross-license, rendering the forum selection clause inapplicable.

Six months after Abbott filed the IPR petitions, DexCom moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IPRs from proceeding. The district court denied the preliminary injunction. In evaluating the four injunctive relief factors (i.e., likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships and public interest), the district court simply assumed the likelihood of success in favor of DexCom. It nevertheless denied the injunction because DexCom waited six months to file the motion (suggesting there was no irreparable harm) and because DexCom had taken inconsistent legal positions with respect to whether the challenged patents were licensed, thus weighing against DexCom in the balance of hardships factor. DexCom sought interlocutory appeal of the district court’s order.

The Federal Circuit focused on the first factor, likelihood of success on the merits. While the district court assumed that this factor favored DexCom, the Federal Circuit disagreed. The Court noted that the agreement required that DexCom and Abbott “shall not Challenge” each other’s patents during the Covenant Period, with the exception that “each Party reserves its rights and is permitted to Challenge any of the patents of the other Party if there is a statute, regulation, or rule that sets a deadline to make the Challenge,” assuming certain conditions were met. The Court first explained that “challenge” includes IPRs of the patents and that nothing in the forum selection clause differentiated between the [...]

Continue Reading

Grubhub Relishes Victory Against Trademark Preliminary Injunction

by Tessa Kroll | Sep 28, 2023 | Trademarks

Upholding the denial of a preliminary injunction motion in a trademark infringement dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the trademark owner failed to show a likelihood of success on its reverse confusion theory. Grubhub Inc. v. Relish Labs LLC, Case No. 22-1950 (7th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023) (Lee, Jackson-Akiwumi, Wood, JJ.)

Relish Labs and the Kroger Company (Home Chef) create and deliver meal kits with pre-portioned ingredients that customers can cook at home. Home Chef began using its “HC Home Mark,” which is protected by five federal trademark registrations, in 2014. Home Chef has spent more than $450 million on advertising and reached $1 billion in annual sales in October 2021.

Grubhub is an online food ordering and delivery service that provides on-demand order management, dispatching and procurement. In June 2021, Grubhub was acquired by Netherlands-based Just Eat Takeaway (JET), an international food delivery company that typically combines its “JET House Mark” with the marks of its local brands.

Before finalizing its acquisition of Grubhub, JET filed an international trademark application for the JET House Mark. However, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) examiner preliminarily rejected the mark, finding it to be “confusingly similar” to the HC Home Mark. JET did not respond and withdrew the application. After acquiring Grubhub, JET adopted the “Grubhub House Logo,” which combined the Grubhub logo with the JET House Mark. Grubhub introduced the new logo in July 2021 and has spent millions of dollars rebranding.

After receiving a cease-and-desist letter from Home Chef, Grubhub sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that its logo did not infringe Home Chef’s marks. Home Chef countered with a motion for preliminary injunction, which was referred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge recommended that the court grant Home Chef preliminary injunctive relief, but the district court rejected the recommendation and denied Home Chef’s motion, finding that it had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. Home Chef appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit began by addressing which Grubhub mark was at issue: the JET House Mark alone or the Grubhub House Logo (which incorporated the logo portion of the JET House Mark). The Court noted that Grubhub had not used the JET House Mark without the Grubhub brand name in the United States and thus agreed with the district court that the accused mark was the Grubhub House Logo: