International Rectifier Corporation v. Ixys Corporation

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 Supreme Court has denounced broad injunctions that merely instruct the enjoined party not to violate a statute”
• finding that Rule 65(d) “requires an injunction to prohibit only those acts sought to be restrained, which in this case are the infringement of the patent by the devices adjudged to infringe and infringement by devices no more than colorably different therefrom”
• vacating permanent injunction that “applie[d] to many more devices than those actually adjudicated.”
• injunction did not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d); injunction may only prohibit infringement of the patent by the adjudicated devices and infringement by devices not more than colorably different from the adjudicated devices
• an injunction may not “simply prohibit[] future infringement of a patent”
• where the patent is for a device, “the only acts the injunction may prohibit are infringement of the patent by the adjudicated devices and infringement by devices not more than colorably different from the adjudicated devices. In order to comply with Rule 65(d

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).