Myco began marketing a product for treating blepharitis called the AB Max at a trade show. A month later, BlephEx filed an application that would become United States Patent No. 10,449,087 and sued Myco for patent infringement. The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Myco from selling, distributing, or offering to sell or distribute the AB Max product. The CAFC rejects Myco’s arguments on appeal that it presented a substantial question as to the validity of claim 16 of the ’087 patent on both anticipation and obviousness grounds, that the preliminary injunction improperly upset the status quo, and that the preliminary injunction is overbroad. Finding that the district court:
- did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction;
- did not clearly err in its underlying factual findings; and
- did not abuse its discretion in setting the scope of the preliminary injunction
the CAFC affirms.
