Aevoe Corp. v. Ae Tech Co., Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining that the district court’s reinsertion of “colorable imitation” language and explicitly naming a previously enjoined party did not alter the legal relationship of the parties and was thus a clarification
• explaining that a “modification of a preliminary injunction . . . is not unique to patent law, so this court applies the law of the regional circuit when reviewing and interpreting such a decision”
• “‘Active concert or participation’ has been interpreted to include both aiders and abettors of, and privies of, an enjoined party.”
• “‘Active concert or participation’ has been interpreted to include both aiders and abettors of, and privies of, an enjoined party.”
• “‘Active concert or partici- pation’ has been interpreted to include both aiders and abettors of, and privies of, an enjoined party.”
• because S&F Defendants were privies of the originally enjoined party AE Tech, and not acting independently, naming them in modification of injunction merely made explicit what was already implicit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).