Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Cardsoft, Inc. et al v. Verifone Holdings, Inc. et al, No. 2:08-cv-00098 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2013)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:08-cv-00098, Dkt. No. 482
Decided
October 30, 2013
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER - the court SEVERS Cardsoft's claim for an ongoing royalty into a separate cause of action
Length
3 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for a Permanent Injunction Under 35 U.S.C. § 283 or, in the Alternative, Imposition of an Ongoing Royalty (Dkt. No. 429). PERMANENT INJUNCTION CardSoft requests that the Court issue a permanent injunction against on-going infringement by Defendants VeriFone and Hype rcom. In determining whether to issue a permanent injunction in patent cases, courts apply the four factor test provided for in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006).