In an August 29, 2013 decision, Judge Robert W. Sweet denied defendant Green Project, Inc.'s Rule 60(b) motion to modify the consent permanent injunction obtained by plaintiff Canon, Inc. to allow Green Project to produce a product that it claimed designed around Canon's patent. Judge Sweet denied relief, writing that as "in analogous cases where district courts have denied motions that 'would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion,' Green Project inappropriately seeks a pre-approval of its future behavior, namely, selling its redesign." The Court also noted that "[e]ven if Rule 60(b) relief were appropriate, Green Project has not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that its redesign does not infringe any claims of" Canon's patents," particularly since its non-infringement contentions were based on attorney argument rather than expert testimony. Judge Sweet concluded that Green Project's "motion is thus inadequate, and an inappropriate procedure, for determining issues of infringement."for the Southern District of New York
Court Declines to Modify Permanent Injunction Against Infringement to Permit Defendant's Redesign
In an August 29, 2013 decision, Judge Robert W. Sweet denied defendant Green Project, Inc.'s Rule 60(b) motion to modify the consent permanent injunction obtained by plaintiff Canon, Inc. to allow Green Project to produce a product that it claimed designed around Canon's patent. Judge Sweet denied relief, writing that as "in analogous cases where district courts have denied motions that 'would amount to an impermissible advisory opinion,' Green Project inappropriately seeks a pre-approval of its future behavior, namely, selling its redesign." The Court also noted that "[e]ven if Rule 60(b) relief were appropriate, Green Project has not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that its redesign does not infringe any claims of" Canon's patents," particularly since its non-infringement contentions were based on attorney argument rather than expert testimony. Judge Sweet concluded that Green Project's "motion is thus inadequate, and an inappropriate procedure, for determining issues of infringement."
Labels:
12 Civ. 00576
,
Judge Sweet
,
Patent Infringement
,
Permanent Injunction
,
Rule 60(b)
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Posted by
Richard Crisona
Labels
05 Civ. 390
(
1
)
09 Civ. 10112
(
1
)
09 Civ. 528
(
1
)
10 Civ. 3734
(
1
)
10 Civ. 7246
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1001
(
1
)
11 Civ. 1594
(
1
)
11 Civ. 4985
(
1
)
11 Civ. 6808
(
1
)
12 Civ 5071
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3699
(
1
)
12 Civ. 3810
(
1
)
12 Civ. 4919
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5070
(
1
)
12 Civ. 5230
(
1
)
12 Civ. 6283
(
2
)
12 Civ. 779
(
1
)
12 Civ. 7902
(
1
)
12 Civ. 9260
(
1
)
12 Civ. 95
(
1
)
13 Civ. 1787
(
1
)
13 Civ. 684
(
1
)
ACPA
(
1
)
Advice of Counsel
(
1
)
Affirmative Defense
(
3
)
ANDA
(
2
)
Anonymity
(
2
)
Attorneys' Fees
(
18
)
Bifurcation
(
1
)
Breach of Contract
(
2
)
Case or Controversy
(
2
)
Contempt
(
2
)
Copyright
(
9
)
Copyright Infringement
(
76
)
Counterfeiting
(
4
)
Damages
(
7
)
Declaratory Judgment
(
7
)
Default Judgment
(
2
)
Federal Circuit
(
2
)
First Sale Doctrine
(
1
)
Fraud
(
1
)
Fraudulent Concealment
(
1
)
Infringement Contentions
(
3
)
Interlocutory Appeal
(
4
)
Judge Abrams
(
5
)
Judge Buchwald
(
3
)
Judge Castel
(
8
)
Judge Cedarbaum
(
1
)
Judge Daniels
(
4
)
Judge Dolinger
(
2
)
Judge Forrest
(
16
)
Judge Gardephe
(
5
)
Judge Hellerstein
(
4
)
Judge Oetken
(
5
)
Judge Preska
(
4
)
Judge Ramos
(
1
)
Judge Schofield
(
5
)
Judge Sullivan
(
12
)
Moot
(
4
)
Motion to Quash
(
2
)
Patent
(
1
)
Patent Infringement
(
56
)
Preliminary Injunction
(
4
)
Reasonable Royalty
(
2
)
Renewal
(
1
)
Safe Harbor
(
1
)
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
(
5
)
Summary Judgment
(
8
)
Trademark
(
2
)
Trademark Infringement
(
42
)
Willfulness
(
6
)
The general information and thoughts posted to this blog are provided only as an informational service to the web community and do not constitute solicitation or provision of legal advice. Nothing on this blog is intended to create an attorney-client relationship and nothing posted constitutes legal advice. You should understand that the posts by the author, who is an attorney at U.S. law firm Allegaert, Berger & Vogel, may or may not reflect the views of that firm and that the author of this blog is only authorized to practice law in the jurisdictions in which he is properly licensed to do so. For additional information, click here.