Second Appeal of Permanent Injunction Turning Case into a Marathon

Posted on | March 20, 2008 | No Comments

2008-1222 MPT v. Marathon Labels
ND/OH 1:04-cv-2357

Defendant Marathon Labels appeals from Judge Patricia Gaughan’s order modifying a permanent injunction following the Federal Circuit’s decision from December 2007 in 2007-1183.  The Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict that defendants contributed to infringement and affirmed the court’s JMOL on willfulness.  The panel reversed in part and remanded regarding the permanent injunction: as written, it prohibited the sales of defendants’ products to users outside of the United States even though the infringed claims were method.  The court remanded to narrow the geographic scope of the injunction.  Days after the panel’s opinion was released, Judge Gaughan modified the permanent injunction to permit sales of defendants’ products to users outside the United States.

Marathon subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the permanent injunction.  It essentially argues that MPT is not entitled to a permanent injunction under the traditional eBay factors, and that there are now apparently non-infringing uses for the product.  Marathon also argued that MPT’s failure to seek a preliminary injunction should essentially bar them from a permanent injunction.  On a procedural note, Marathon also claimed that the court was required to have a new briefing and evidentiary phase following the Federal Circuit’s order. 

MPT countered that most of these issues were raised in the first appeal, and that no new evidentiary hearing or briefing was required.  Also, MPT argued that the motion really should have been captioned under Rule 59, and was therefore untimely because it was not within 10 days of the court’s modification order.  Judge Gaughan summarily denied Marathon’s motion.

Comments