Frontline frenzy at CAFC

In Merial v. Cipla, the majority stated

we conclude that (1) the 2008 default judg- ment against Cipla rested on a valid exercise of personal jurisdiction; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to stay the contempt proceedings in view of the then-pending Delaware action; (3) the district court did not clearly err in determining that PetArmor Plus infringes the ’329 patent and is not more than colorably different from Cipla’s previously enjoined Protektor Plus product; (4) Cipla’s extraterritorial role in the development, production, and ultimate U.S. sale of PetArmor Plus violated the district court’s injunction against in- duced infringement of the ’329 patent; (5) Velcera’s actions bringing PetArmor Plus to market in concert with Cipla qualified as contemptuous conduct despite its status as a non-party to the 2008 default judgment; and (6) the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting further sales of PetArmor Plus.