This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions involving the same plaintiffs-appellees. Both opinions come from a design patent case appealed from the Northern District of Illinois. In the first opinion, the Federal Circuit reverses the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and remands the case. In the second opinion, the Federal Circuit vacates the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction and an order adding defendants to the injunction. Here are the introductions to the opinions.
ABC Corp. I v. Partnership and Unincorporated Associations (Precedential)
This is an appeal from the district court’s entry of an October 2021 preliminary injunction against appellants Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Gyroor, Fengchi-US, Jiangyou-US, Gyroshoes, and HGSM (collectively “appellants”). Because the district court failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) and our precedent in finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, we reverse and remand.
ABC Corp. I v. Partnership and Unincorporated Associations (Precedential)
We address three appeals—filed by GaodeshangUS; by Fengchi-US and Urbanmax together; and by Gyroor-US— from orders entered by the district court in a case brought in 2020 by ABC Corporation I and ABC Corporation II (collectively, ABC), in which ABC asserted four design patents against several business entities selling hoverboards online. ABC identified the defendants through a Schedule A, which changed over time, attached to the original and amended complaints. On November 24, 2020, the district court entered a preliminary injunction against the thennamed defendants, which included Gyroor-US, though it had not yet been served with process and was not given advance notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) of the request for a preliminary injunction. Six months later, on May 24, 2021, the district court granted ABC’s motion to amend Schedule A to add GaodeshangUS, Fengchi-US, and Urbanmax, among others, thereby slating them to be defendants directly bound by the 2020 Preliminary Injunction, though these entities had not yet been served with process and did not receive Rule 65(a) notice. Because the required Rule 65(a) notice had not been given, we vacate the 2020 Preliminary Injunction as of its issuance, and, perhaps redundantly, we also vacate the May 24 Order insofar as it added defendants to the 2020 Preliminary Injunction.