Dueling attempts to preliminarily enjoin and to dismiss complaint both fail
Sun Optics, Inc. v. FGX International, Inc., C.A. No. 07-137- SLR, August 2, 2007.
Robinson, J. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and defendant’s motion to dismiss are denied.
Two patents-in-suit are design patents which claim an ornamental design for an eyeglass case. The third is a utility patent. The Court refused to preliminarily enjoin defendant, ruling that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff is not entitled to a presumption of irreparable harm and has otherwise failed to establish irreparable harm. Defendant’s argument that the commercial embodiments of the design patents were on sale more than a year prior to the patent application was rejected based on a declaration to the contrary. The Court declined to deem patents unenforceable where an amended application was promptly and properly rejected by the PTO. The Court further declined to dismiss for alleged “judge shopping” based on the fact that the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed nearly the same complaint in another district. The Court noted that the pending legislative efforts to create specialized patent judges, i.e., encouraging judge shopping, makes this argument unprevailing.A copy of the full opinion is available here.
