Power Probe v. Innova, decided March 13, 2025

Case Name and Citation: POWER PROBE GROUP, INC. v. INNOVA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, No. 2024-1166, decided March 13, 2025 (Fed. Cir.)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Panel: Lourie, Taranto, and Stoll, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Lourie, Circuit Judge.

Issue: Did the District Court for the District of Nevada abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Power Probe Group, Inc. against Innova Electronics Corporation for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,184,899.

Holding: No. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its analysis of the four factors required for such an injunction.

  Background:

1. Power Probe owns U.S. Patent No. 7,184,899 ("the '899 patent"), which covers an "electrical test device having multi-meter functionality and being adapted to provide current sourcing to an electrical system for selective measurement of a plurality of parameters." The patent is set to expire on April 27, 2025.

2. Power Probe sells electrical circuit testers that it claims are commercial embodiments of the '899 patent.

3. In February 2021, Power Probe sued Innova, alleging that Innova's 5420 circuit tester ("the accused product") infringes several claims of the '899 patent.

4. Power Probe moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent Innova from promoting, marketing, advertising, selling, and offering for sale the accused product.

5. The district court initially denied the motion after a tentative claim construction, finding likely non-infringement.

6. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the denial and remanded, finding the district court's claim construction to be erroneous.

7. On remand, the district court ordered supplemental briefing and, based on tentative constructions of other disputed claim limitations (without a Markman hearing), found that Power Probe had shown a likelihood of success on the merits (likely non-invalidity and likely infringement), irreparable harm, a balance of equities favoring Power Probe, and that the public interest favored the injunction.

   
   

Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

Standard for Preliminary Injunction: The Federal Circuit reviews the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction under the law of the regional circuit (Ninth Circuit in this case), which reviews for an abuse of discretion. The four factors considered are:

• Likelihood of success on the merits.

• Likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party absent an injunction.

• Balance of hardships between the parties.

• Impact of the injunction on the public interest.

  
  

The Ninth Circuit finds an abuse of discretion when a court "applies an incorrect legal rule or relies upon a factual finding that is illogical, implausible, or without support in inference that may be drawn from the record."

1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits:

• Innova argued that the district court erred in its tentative claim constructions, leading to an incorrect determination of likely non-invalidity and infringement.

• The Federal Circuit was not persuaded, noting that the '899 patent was set to expire soon (less than two months after submission) and that the district court had not yet conducted a Markman hearing for definitive claim construction.

• The court cited Jack Guttman, Inc. v. Kopykake Ents., Inc., 302 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2002), regarding "rolling claim construction" where interpretations can evolve.

• Because of the limited time before patent expiration and the preliminary nature of the district court's claim constructions, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the likelihood of success determination.

• Quote: "Bearing in mind the little time left before the preliminary injunction expires and that the district court’s claim constructions may well change after it conducts a Markman hearing, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s preliminary determinations on likelihood of success. Accordingly, we do not disturb the district court’s conclusion that Power Probe established a likelihood of success on the merits."

2. Irreparable Harm:

• Innova argued that the district court's finding of immediate irreparable harm was illogical because it relied on a "stale" record from June 2021.

• The Federal Circuit disagreed, noting that Power Probe had presented expert opinions predicting "immediate, irreparable injuries, including a loss of market share and follow-on purchases, price erosion, harm to goodwill and reputation, and workforce reduction."

• Innova failed to provide any evidence to counter these expert opinions.

• Quote: "Accordingly, because the record provided that Power Probe may suffer immediate, irreparable harm, the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding this factor to weigh in favor of Power Probe."

3.  Balance of Hardships:

• Innova contended that the district court merely "presumed" based on "attorney argument" that the balance of hardships favored Power Probe.

• The Federal Circuit rejected this, stating that Power Probe's argument was supported by expert opinion that "the majority of Power Probe’s revenue was derived from an electrical circuit tester embodying the patent, and Innova had numerous other streams of revenue apart from the accused product."

• Quote: "It was therefore not an abuse of discretion for the district court to conclude that this factor weighs in favor of Power Probe."

4.  Public Interest:

• Innova argued that the district court failed to consider that the public interest favors increased competition.

• The Federal Circuit cited precedent (Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Lab’ys, 849 F.2d 1446, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) stating that the public interest generally favors protecting patent rights to promote innovation.

• The focus is on whether there is a "critical public interest that would be injured by the grant of preliminary relief."

• Because the '899 patent was not directed to a life-saving product, the district court's conclusion that the public interest favored the injunction was deemed reasonable.

• Quote: "Because the district court made the relevant inquiry and reached a reasonable conclusion, we determine that it did not abuse its discretion in weighing the fourth factor in favor of Power Probe."
  

Reassignment of Judge: Innova also argued for reassignment of the case to a different district court judge due to alleged partiality, but the Federal Circuit found that Innova had not met the "high standard" required for such reassignment.

Conclusion:

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant the preliminary injunction in favor of Power Probe. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's analysis of the four preliminary injunction factors, particularly given the impending expiration of the '899 patent and the preliminary stage of claim construction.