Archive for the ‘Patent law’ category

Judge Dee Benson – Motion for Preliminary Injunction denied

July 6, 2007

ANDERSEN MANUFACTURING, INC., an Idaho Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. DIVERSI-TECH CORP., a Utah Corporation, ANGELA BUDGE, and PAUL BUDGE, Defendants

2007 U.S. District LEXIS 47925

Case No.: 2:05-CV-923, Consolidated with 2:07-CV-88

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division

July 2, 2007 – Judge Dee Benson

Plaintiff Andersen Manufacturing, Incorporated requested a preliminary injunction preventing Diversi-Tech Corporation from continuing its alleged infringement of a patent for an extruded aluminum trailer hitch.

The Court stated that “in order to merit the grant of a motion for preliminary injunction, a movant must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case; (2) irreparable injury to the movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the other party under the preliminary injunction; and (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest.”

The Court expressed concerns regarding the validity of the Anderson patent, particularly in regard to the obviousness of the apparatus. As to the two item of uniqueness claimed by the plaintiff, the Court states: “there is support for the proposition that both a trailer hitch drop bar and aluminum alloy are well-known elements in the prior art.”

“Accordingly, Andersen’s motion for a preliminary injunction fails to meet the burden of step 1. Andersen has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits due to significant questions as to the validity of the ‘412 patent.”


Magistrate Judge David Nuffer – Motion to Amend granted; Motion to Implead granted

December 27, 2006


Civil No. 1:05-CV-64 TS

United States District Court for the District of Utah, Northern Division

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92658

December 21, 2006

Magistrate Judge David Nuffer

Plaintiff Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C. alleges the Defendants have infringed on three of its patents related to errors in floppy disk controllers. Plaintiff alleges the infringement occurs in several specified models of Defendants’ computers. Defendants deny the allegations and claim the patents are invalid.


Plaintiff seeks to amend its amended complaint, charging defendants with infringement of two additional patents, and states: “the proposed addition of two patents that cover the same subject matter as the patents-in-suit would simply not expand this litigation to any significant degree.”  Further, Sony seeks to implead six third-party defendants; and one of those prospective third-party defendants seeks to intervene.


Magistrate Judge Nuffer granted the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend and granted Sony’s Motion to Implead Third Parties (for all six of the third-parties).  The Motion to Intervene filed by the prospective third-party was held moot (since they were brought in through the Motion to Implead).


There will soon be a hundred lawyers working on this case. 

Judge Tena Campbell – Motion for Preliminary Injunction denied

September 6, 2006

WORLD HEALTH PRODUCTS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Plaintiff, vs. CHELATION SPECIALISTS, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, RONALD PARTAIN, JR., an individual, RONALD PARTAIN, SR., an individual, PATRICK HAYES, an individual, and DOES 1 through 5, Defendants.

Case No. 2:06 CV 633

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61444

August 28, 2006

Plaintiff created and sells a suppository product called Detoxamin. The Detoxamin suppository provides one method by which an individual can pursue chelation therapy.

World Health’s filed a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to prevent defendants from marketing a competing products. World Health alleges that Kelatox infringes a patent held by World Health and also claims that Chelation misappropriated World Health’s customer list in an effort to steal customers.

The Court held that: “World Health is unable to establish that it will likely succeed on the merits of its case. Additionally, consideration of the harm that an injunction would cause, as well as the public’s interest, leads to the conclusion that an injunction is not warranted.”

Motion for preliminary injunction denied.