Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

Magistrate recommends denial of plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.  Plaintiff is a leader in the market for power supply controller integrated circuits (“ICs”) and seeks to enjoin defendant from allegedly infringing on preliminary injunction digital frequency jittering circuit for varying the switching frequency of a power supply.  Defendant’s IC products directly compete with plaintiff’s ICs.  Plaintiff alleges that it has seen a significant decline in market share as a result of the sale of defendant’s infringing products although the reduction in sales has begun to recover in recent months.  Applying the four factors the Magistrate finds that plaintiff has failed to meet its burden and denies the motion.  Although the Court’s previous claim construction in a related case has no res judicata effect here since defendant was not a party to that litigation, the parties agree to apply the same construction for purposes of this motion.  Although plaintiff has met its burden on infringement, it failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits due to a substantial question as to validity.  Defendant’s challenge rests on the basis of three prior art challenges which defendant argues anticipates the patent-in-suit.  The defendant in the related litigation requested and was granted a reexamination of the same patent-in-suit by the PTO which issued an initial Office Action rejecting claim 1 of the patent-in-suit as anticipated by the same three prior art references.  The possibility that the PTO will adhere to its current position raises a substantial question as to validity.  In addition, plaintiff is unable to show irreparable harm in light of evidence that plaintiff’s market share and reputation have not been damaged by defendant’s sales.  Plaintiff’s three-month delay in bringing the instant motion also cuts against issuing an injunction.