U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART III— PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS › Chapter CHAPTER 29— REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT, AND OTHER ACTIONS

35 U.S.C. § 283

Injunction

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 520 cases (92 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “[14] We begin with the language of 35 U.S.C. § 283 , which provides in relevant part: The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on…”
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “Medtronic asserts, citing 35 U.S.C. § 283 , that an injunction is only proper to prevent future infringement.”
The Johns Hopkins Univ., Baxter Healthcare Corp. & Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, because CellPro created and maintained its hybridoma in Canada as a result of infringing activities in the United States, the court finds that it will be acting within its equitable powers under 35 U.S.C. § 283 by ordering CellPro to repatriate the hybridomas stored…”
I4i Ltd. P'ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 35 U.S.C. § 283 . 6 The plaintiff has the burden of showing that (1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in…”
Herb Reed Enter., LLC v. Florida Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 35 U.S.C. § 283 ; 15 U.S.C. § 1116 (a). 18 HRE V.”
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., 646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “2d at 674 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 283 ). For example, *894 in Riles we held that "an injunction cannot impose unnecessary restraints on lawful activity," and thus concluded that enjoining the use of the entire product was improper where the defendant "may lawfully use its [product]…”
Joy Tech., Inc., & A/s Niro Atomizer, Involuntary v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770 (Fed. Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “STANDARD OF REVIEW While the right to exclude is the essence of the concept of property, 3 district courts are, nevertheless, given broad discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 283 (1988) 4 to determine whether the facts of a case warrant the grant of an injunction and to determine the…”
Tate Access Floors, Inc. & Tate Access Floors Leasing, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc., 279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “The District Court’s Grant of Preliminary Injunction The district court properly noted that pursuant to this court’s precedent interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 283 , Tate’s entitlement to a preliminary injunction hinged on proof regarding four factors: (1) likely success on the merits,…”
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “1987) ("To obtain a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 , a party must establish a right thereto in light of four factors: (a) reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (b) irreparable harm; (c) a balance of hardships tipping…”
Cottonwood Env't Law Ctr. v. United States Forest Serv., 789 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “To the contrary, the Patent Act expressly provides that injunctions ‘may’ issue ‘in accordance with the principles of equity’” (citing 35 U.S.C. § 283 )). Therefore, we must look to the underlying statute to determine whether the traditional test for injunctive relief applies,…”
Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, Abbott argues that the preliminary injunction ruling could be affirmed on the alternate grounds that Teva failed to raise a substantial challenge to the validity of claim 2 of the ’616 patent.”
Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Analysis Our review of a district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 is limited to determining whether, in granting the preliminary injunction, the district court abused its discretion, committed an error of law, or seriously misjudged the…”
Show all 520 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.