Monday, April 6, 2015

CryoLife Appeals Rare Injunction In Patent Case

CryoLife Inc. on Wednesday filed its notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit of a preliminary injunction barring its PerClot blood-clotting powder, one day after a Delaware federal judge ordered Medafor Inc. to pay CryoLife $100,000 in the event that any court finds the injunction was wrongly issued. 
C.R. Bard Inc. unit Medafor satisfied the test for securing a preliminary injunction, including showing a reasonable likelihood that it will succeed on the merits and would suffer irreparable harm if CryoLife's product remained on the market, U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson ruled last month, in a relatively rare instance of a judge granting a preliminary injunction in a patent case. On Wednesday, CryoLife filed its notice of appeal of the injunction to the Federal Circuit.

The judge said Medafor has represented that it is able to pay the $100,000 if the condition on the injunction is met and that CryoLife agreed with the representation, adding that the requirement was proper and adequate security for the injunction.

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), this court orders that if this court or another court of competent jurisdiction finds this preliminary injunction wrongfully enjoined CryoLife, Medafor shall pay CryoLife $100,000 within ten (10) days of the order vacating or reversing this injunction,” the judge said.

CryoLife's PerClot Topical, launched last fall, competes with a Medafor product called Arista that was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006. Both are powders used to control bleeding when conventional methods are ineffective.

The dispute began in April, when CryoLife filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that PerClot Topical would not infringe Medafor's patent. Medafor responded by filing an infringement counterclaim and seeking a preliminary injunction. CryoLife began selling PerClot Topical last fall.

Judge Robinson found that Medafor had shown that CryoLife likely infringes and that CryoLife was unlikely to show that the patent is invalid.

No comments: