EDGE SYSTEMS LLC v. AGUILA: pro se appellant loses at CAFC

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must estab-
lish (1) “he is likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) “he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of prelim-
inary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in his favor”;
and (4) “an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (cita-
tions omitted).
We refer to these considerations as the Winter
Factors and examine them in turn.
Under the first Winter Factor, a patentee “must
demonstrate that it will likely prove infringement of one
or more claims of the patents in-suit, and that at least one
of those same allegedly infringed claims will also likely
withstand the validity challenges presented by the accused infringer.”
AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d
1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). A court’s patent infringement analysis
involves two steps: (1) “the court determines the scope
and meaning of the asserted claims”; and (2) “the properly
construed claims are compared to the allegedly infringing
device.”
Mas-Hamilton Grp. v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d
1206, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (internal citati
ons omitted).
However, the preliminary injunction “should not issue if
an alleged infringer raises a substantial question regard-
ing either infringement or validity, i.e., the alleged in-
fringer asserts an infringement or invalidity defense that
the patentee has not shown lacks substantial merit.”
AstraZeneca LP, 633 F.3d at 1050
(citation omitted).


link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1507.Opinion.12-17-2015.1.PDF