Trojan, Inc. v. Shat-R-Shield, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
September 12, 1989, Decided
[***1133] [*854] NIES, Circuit Judge.
Shat-R-Shield, Inc. (SRS) moved for additional injunctive relief against Trojan, Inc., invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(3) (1982), to preclude Trojan specifically from bidding on government contracts under which Trojan would supply lamps which have been held to infringe SRS's United States Patent No. 4,506,189 ( '189). See Trojan, Inc. v. Shat-R-Shield, Inc., 703 F. Supp. 609, 8 [*855] USPQ2d 1391 (E.D.Ky. 1988). The district court denied SRS's motion. Trojan, Inc. v. Shat-R-Shield, Inc. [**2] , No. 85-143, slip op. (E.D.Ky. Sept. 2, 1988) (Suhrheinrich, J.). We affirm.
The entirety of the district court's analysis refusing to enjoin Trojan from bidding on government contracts is as follows:
The motion for injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(3) be and is hereby denied; however, the Court finds that Shat-R-Shield is entitled to the relief requested, but the Court is constrained to deny Shat-R-Shield's motion for an injunction against Trojan's bidding in view of the decision in W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 6 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1277 (Fed.Cir. 1988).
Slip op. at 2.
SRS urges that the district court correctly found that 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(3) entitled SRS to the relief requested but erred in holding that the decision of this court in W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 6 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1277 (Fed.Cir. 1988), precluded such relief. We disagree on both points raised by SRS.
A. Section 1491(a)(3) Is Inapplicable Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
885 F.2d 854 *; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 13722 **; 12 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1132 ***; 36 Cont. Cas. Fed. (CCH) P75,812
TROJAN, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAT-R-SHIELD, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Subsequent History: [**1] Reversed by 1989 U.S. App. Lexis 16382.
Prior History: Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Suhrheinrich.
infringing, bidding, injunction, patent, injunctive relief, district court, frivolous, government contract, manufacture, contract claim, enjoin
Administrative Law, Sovereign Immunity, Governments, Courts, Courts of Claims, Public Contracts Law, Dispute Resolution, Jurisdiction, Civil Procedure, Remedies, Injunctions, General Overview, Contracts Law, Equitable Relief, Injunctions, Patent Law, Infringement Actions, Damages, Sanctions, Contract Performance, Bids & Formation, Intellectual Property Rights, Patents, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, Corporate & Government Infringers