1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Bad Faith Required For Preliminary Injunction Against Patent Holder Warning Potential Infringers

Bad Faith Required For Preliminary Injunction Against Patent Holder Warning Potential Infringers

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.14.08

In Judkins v. HT Window Fashion Corp. (No. 2007-1434; April 8, 2008), a Federal Circuit panel affirms a district court's denial of a preliminary injunction for an alleged violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act which was filed as a counterclaim in response to a claim for patent infringement. HT Window Fashion alleged that Judkins, the patent holder, sent their customers letters stating that HT Window Fashion infringed his patents in bad faith because the Judkins purportedly knew that the patent was unenforceable. The panel agrees that the Judkins' actions did not rise to the level of bad faith for HT Window Fashion to prevail on the section 43(a) claim stemming from a patentee's marketplace activity in support of his patent. Bad faith, in the context of informing potential infringers of a patent and potentially infringing activity, requires that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect to prevail in a dispute over infringement of the patent. In affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction, the Federal Circuit finds that the most significant factor for determining whether a party is entitled to an injunction is the likelihood that the moving party would succeed on the merits. The district's courts reliance on the patent's presumption of validity, even in view of the possibility of inequitable conduct, is not found to be an abuse of discretion.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights