Helifix Limited v. Blok-Lok, Ltd. And William Scott Burns v. Helifix North America Corporation, Third Party Counterclaim

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding where patentee couldn’t establish likelihood of success on merits that it wasn’t “necessary for the court to consider the remaining preliminary injunction factors”
• holding that a prior art reference is anticipatory if it discloses each and every limitation of the claimed invention and must describe the claimed invention sufficiently to place it in the possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention
• vacating summary judgment of patent invalidity, but affirming denial of preliminary injunction on invalidity grounds where the relevant evidence was “very much in equipoise” and “substantial question of patent invalidity” arose
• “We exercise our discretion to invoke pendent appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory grant 17 ORENSHTEYN v. CITRIX SYSTEMS of summary judgment ‘because it is closely interrelated factually’ to the preliminary injunction.”
• “We exercise our discretion to invoke pendent appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory grant of summary judgment. ... [T]he denial of the preliminary injunction and the grant of summary judgment are ‘inextricably intertwined.’ ”
• “We exercise our discretion to invoke pendent appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory grant of summary judgment . . . . [T]he denial of the preliminary injunction and the grant of summary judgment are ‘inextricably intertwined.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).