High Tech Medical Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the 17-month delay “may not have been enough, standing alone, to demonstrate the absence of irreparable harm”
• observing that “the lack of commercial activity by the patentee is a significant factor in the calculus” of whether the pat-entee will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction
• reversing the issuance of a preliminary injunction where the patentee did \not make or sell [the relevant products] and [did] not license their manufacture and sale\
• reversing the issuance of a preliminary injunction where the patentee did “not make or sell [the relevant products] and [did] not license their manufacture and sale”
• finding the “rotatably coupled” limitation in the asserted claim was not met by the accused product where the accused product had to be altered—by loosen- ing the set screws—in order for it to rotate
• seventeen months is a substantial period of delay that diminishes the sense of urgency required for issuing preliminary relief

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).