Case ID: f-appx_494/html/0093-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The PAW WASH, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAW PLUNGER, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 2012-1240.
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Dec. 14, 2012.
    Richard L. Brophy, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, of St. Louis, MO, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was Jennifer E. Hoekel.
    David L. Rein, Jr., Finch & Campbell, LLP, of Kansas City, MO, argued for defendant-appellant.
    Before DYK, PLAGER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this case, based on a certain settlement agreement between the parties, the district court, on November 15, 2011, issued a permanent injunction enjoining Paw Plunger, LLC (“Paw Plunger”) “from infringing the '391 patent by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling in the United States of importing into the United States the Taw Plunger’ and any other products that infringe one (1) or more claims of the '391 patent.” Paw Plunger appeals. We affirm the decision of the district court with one exception. The injunction granted by the district court should have been limited to Claim 17 of the '891 patent. Thus, the permanent injunction must be revised to read as follows:

ORDERED Defendant and each of its agents affiliates, successors, servants, and employees, and any and all other persons or entities acting under Defendant’s authority, are hereby permanently enjoined from infringing the '391 patent by making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling in the United States or importing into the United States the “Paw Plunger” and any other products that infringe Claim 17 of the '391 patent.

In light of this decision, we vacate the district court’s ruling and remand to the district court so that it may enter an appropriate order.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

Costs

Costs to appellee.