In Asmark Danmark A\/S v. CMI USA Inc., [2016-1026, 2016-1183] (December 6, 2016), the Federal Circuit\u00a0affirmed the district court\u2019s rulings on infringement,
\ninvalidity, and damages, but remanded as to\u00a0the\u00a0injunction insofar as it covered conduct of Cooler Master (who was not a party) that\u00a0goes beyond abetting a new violation by CMI.<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit said that the\u00a0standards for reaching conduct by persons
\nnot adjudicated liable for the underlying wrong, reflected\u00a0in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), are highly fact specific, and the Federal Circuit said that a determination of the propriety of the injunction\u2019s reach “would benefit from further findings\u00a0and, if sought and needed, further record development.”<\/p>\n
The district court granted the prevailing patent owner’s\u00a0motion for an injunction against both CMI and Cooler Master, even though Cooler Master had dismissed as a party.
\nCooler Master appealed the injunction, and rejoined as a party. \u00a0Cooler Master\u00a0argued that its dismissal with prejudice precluded the district court\u00a0from subjecting Cooler Master to the injunction\u2019s obligations, and that in any event the injunction is too broad\u00a0in scope insofar as the injunction reaches Cooler Master\u2019s\u00a0conduct (sale, importation, etc., involving the products other than conduct\u00a0that abets a new violation by CMI, the only party adjudicated\u00a0liable for infringement.<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit said that Cooler Master did not argue that the district
\ncourt lacked personal jurisdiction; that Cooler Master lacked notice
\nor an opportunity to be heard; or that the injunction is\u00a0improper under eBay, or because Cooler Master does not sufficiently threaten to engage in the covered conduct. Cooler Master’s complaint was that the challenged obligations imposed on Cooler
\nMaster were improper for reasons it could invoke if\u00a0they were imposed through contempt.<\/p>\n
The Federal Circuit rejected Cooler Master’s contention that it could not be enjoined because the dismissal with prejudice was an adjudication\u00a0that has\u00a0claim-preclusive effect. While the premise was correct,\u00a0the \u201cclaim\u201d covered\u00a0by the dismissal, which concerned Cooler Master\u2019s\u00a0pre-dismissal conduct, which was different from the\u00a0conduct subject to the injunction, which is Cooler Master\u2019s\u00a0future conduct.<\/p>\n
The fundamental principle relevant to appellants\u2019\u00a0narrower, scope objection to the injunction was that an\u00a0injunction may not \u201cmake punishable the conduct of\u00a0persons who act independently and whose rights have not\u00a0been adjudged according to law. \u00a0However, the Federal Circuit said that\u00a0an injunction\u00a0may reach certain conduct by persons not held liable\u00a0where the conduct is not undertaken\u00a0\u201cindependently\u201d of the persons who have been held\u00a0liable. \u00a0The injunction\u00a0imposed two sorts of obligations
\non Cooler Master\u2014it restricts conduct by Cooler\u00a0Master that abets a new violation by CMI; but \u00a0it also restricts conduct by Cooler Master that does not abet a\u00a0new violation by CMI. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that there is a\u00a0there is a current live dispute\u00a0about the permissibility of barring Cooler Master from\u00a0engaging in U.S.-focused activities involving the infringing\u00a0products other than through CMI. \u00a0The Federal Circuit did\u00a0not think it advisable to resolve the issue of the\u00a0proper scope of the injunction without a fuller picture\u00a0of the facts described by the district court, so it remanded the case for further development of the record, while leaving the injunction intact.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Asmark Danmark A\/S v. CMI USA Inc., [2016-1026, 2016-1183] (December 6, 2016), the Federal Circuit\u00a0affirmed the district court\u2019s rulings on infringement, invalidity, and damages, but remanded as to\u00a0the\u00a0injunction insofar as it covered conduct of Cooler Master (who was not … Continue reading