Preliminary injunction denied in Novo Nordisk case

The CAFC noted: In this case, the district court denied the preliminary injunction because the
patentee failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. (...) After reviewing
the intrinsic record, we cannot conclude that the district court
abused its discretion. The district court found that a question exists regarding whether
“the very character of the invention requires direct gearing and a non-rotatable piston
rod,” id. at 35, a finding which, at this stage of the proceedings and on this record, we
do not view to be clearly erroneous.

Tate Access was quoted: While it is true that many of the
substantial questions identified by the district court would ultimately be analyzed in the
context of construing the claims, some might more appropriately be analyzed in the
context of validity (i.e., written description and enablement). See, e.g., Tate Access
Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
(“[W]here claim language is clear we must accord it full breadth even if the result is a
claim that is clearly invalid.”).