Socket Solutions, LLC v. Import Global, LLC, 1:23-cv-24517

Socket Solutions, LLC sued Import Global, LLC, alleging infringement of Claim 19 of the ‘080 Patent relating to electrical outlet cover apparatuses.
Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to halt Import Global’s sales of the accused product, "Neat Socket," alleging patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
The Court referred both the preliminary injunction motion and claim construction to a magistrate judge, who recommended granting the injunction.
Import Global objected to the magistrate’s report, primarily challenging claim construction and arguing invalidity and non-infringement.
The District Judge conducted a de novo review, considering the parties’ objections, hearing transcripts, evidentiary submissions, and the magistrate’s recommendations.
The Court affirmed and adopted the magistrate’s report, ultimately granting the preliminary injunction against Import Global.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood of Success (Infringement)	Accused product practices all elements of Claim 19 as construed	Accused product lacks key elements (e.g., “pins,” “backplate”); court’s claim construction is flawed	Plaintiff likely to succeed; court adopts claim construction and finds likely infringement
Claim Indefiniteness & Invalidity	Terms like "minimize distance" and "approximately" are definite, supported by expert testimony	Terms are indefinite and render patent invalid; court favored plaintiff’s expert without basis	Terms not indefinite; defendant failed to show substantial question of invalidity
Anticipation and Obviousness	Defendant has not shown prior art discloses or renders obvious Claim 19	Prior art anticipates or renders claim obvious; objects to court’s analysis but provides no specifics	Defendant’s evidence insufficient; court finds no substantial question of invalidity
Irreparable Harm/Balance/Public Interest	Will suffer irreparable harm absent injunction; public interest favors protection of patent rights	No irreparable harm; public interest favors marketplace competition	Presumption of irreparable harm applies; public interest favors injunctive relief

Hybritech, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (enumerates four-factor test for preliminary injunction in patent cases)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (sets claim construction standards for patent litigation)
Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discusses presumption of irreparable harm in patent infringement)
Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prod. Co., 717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (addresses public interest and injunctions in patent cases)
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (defendant must raise substantial question of patent validity to defeat injunction)
Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (addresses claim definiteness in patent law)
Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. J. Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (plaintiff’s burden on likelihood of success and validity for injunction)