Aevoe Corp. v. Ae Tech Co., Ltd.
727 F.3d 1375
| Fed. Cir. | 2013Background
- Aevoe holds the ’942 patent on a touch screen protector.
- AE Tech, S&F, and GreatShield appeal a district court preliminary injunction barring certain products.
- In January 2012 the district court issued the injunction against AE Tech and entities acting in concert.
- AE Tech redesigned its product and was alleged to have sold the redesigned version before notice.
- The district court amended the injunction in March and again in May 2012, including removing and re-adding certain language and naming S&F.
- AE Tech did not appeal the May 2012 modification, and Aevoe sought contempt against AE Tech and later the S&F Defendants; the district court found contempt and sanctions in May 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 2012 order modified the injunction or merely clarified it. | AE Tech argues the May 2012 order modified the injunction. | Aevoe contends there was no modification; it was a clarification. | No modification found; only clarification; appeal untimely. |
| Whether AE Tech’s appeal is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). | Appeal from May 2012 modification is timely. | Not timely because no substantive modification occurred. | Untimely because court did not alter the January 2012 injunction substantively. |
| Whether the S&F Defendants may appeal the injunction as successors or privies. | S&F could appeal due to explicit inclusion in May 2012 order. | Addition did not modify the injunction; they were already within its scope. | No jurisdiction for S&F appeal; addition was not a modification. |
Key Cases Cited
- TiVo Inc. v. Echostar Corp., 646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (colorably different test for redesigned products under injunctions)
- Cunningham v. David Special Commitment Ctr., 158 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 1998) (modification vs interpretation depends on change in legal relations)
- Entegris, Inc. v. Pall Corp., 490 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (jurisdictional analysis for modifications to injunctions)
- Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2005) (interpretation of injunctions and modifications for jurisdiction)
- Motorola, Inc. v. Computer Displays, Int’l, Inc., 739 F.2d 1149 (7th Cir. 1984) (clarifies boundaries between modification and interpretation of injunctions)