September 20, 2016 – On September 12, 2016, Magistrate Judge Burke recommended denying preliminary injunction of HyperBranch Medical Technology, Inc. (“HyperBranch”)’s accused crosslinkable polymer dural sealant products. Assuming the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, Judge Burke nonetheless found they had failed to establish irreparable harm in the form of lost market share, product portfolio synergy, growth opportunity, price erosion, or reputational harm. Judge Burke further found that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate insufficiency of monetary damages, and had failed to establish a nexus between the alleged harm and the patented features of their products. According to Judge Burke’s recommendation, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a connection between “patentee’s asserted improvement over the prior art and the decisions of physicians to choose the AutoSpray product because that product (allegedly) embodies and/or utilizes such improvements.” Rather, Judge Burke credited defendant’s argument that the defendant’s applicator, which is not covered by the asserted patents, could independently account for the allegedly infringing sales. Regarding the balance of hardships, the recommendation noted the disparity in size between plaintiffs and defendant and the relatively small impact to date on plaintiffs’ revenues. The Court also found that the public’s interest in physician choice and preference weighed against injunction.
The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,566,406, 7,009,034, 7,332,566, 7,592,418, 8,003,705, and 8,535,705. The case is captioned Integra Lifesciences Corp. v. Hyperbranch Medical Technology, Inc., Docket No. 15-819-LPS-CJB in the District Court of Delaware.
By: Sean C. McDonagh