While not particularly relevant for patent preparation or prosecution, the main holding here is simply that the likelihood of success in a patent case is a substantive matter, and that Federal Circuit law (which tends to be the most favorable to patentees seeking an injunction) is therefore what governs. We will see if the Supreme Court decides to weigh in here, given their recent interest in bridging the gap between patent injunctions and equitable relief in other areas (e.g., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).)
Background / Facts: The patents at issue were design patents directed to ballistic protective eyewear, primarily for military establishments and law enforcement agencies, but also for others who require eye protection, such as hunters and range shooters. Revision moved for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Balboa from making and selling its Bobster Bravo goggles during their litigation. Despite the patent-related subject matter, the Second Circuit District Court applied its own heightened standard of proof for the likelihood of success on the merits showing for a preliminary injunction, requiring a clear and substantial likelihood of success, instead of the Federal Circuit’s standard for consideration of whether to impose such relief, requiring simply a more-likely-than-not showing.
Issue(s): Whether a district court is free to apply its own heightened standards of proof in considering likelihood of success in patent-related cases in lieu of the Federal Circuit’s standard.
Holding(s): No. Substantive matters of patent infringement are unique to patent law, and thus the estimated likelihood of success in establishing infringement is governed by Federal Circuit law. A patentee need not meet a district court’s heightened “clear or substantial likelihood” standard, but rather the Federal Circuit’s standard of whether success is more likely than not.