Celsis In Vitro Inc, v. Cellzdirect, Inc.

The court analyzes four factors when considering a preliminary injunction: 1) likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm, 3) balance of hardships, and 4) public interest.

CellzDirect, Inc. (“Cellz”) appealed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granting Celsis In Vitro Inc.’s (“Celsis”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Cellz for the infringement of a patent which claimed methods for preparing multi-cryopreserved hepatocytes (a type of liver cell that is a useful laboratory model for evaluating drug candidates). The Court analyzed four factors when considering the preliminary injunction: 1) likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm, 3) balance of hardships, and 4) public interest. The Court found that the expert testimony proffered by experts of Celsis regarding infringement, claim construction and non-obviousness showed a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court next found that Celsis would suffer irreparable harm absent a preliminary injunction due to price erosion, damage to ongoing customer relationships, loss of customer goodwill and loss of business opportunities. Third, the Court concluded that the balance of harms tilted heavily in Celsis’ favor, relying again on expert testimony. Finally the court found that the public interest favored the enforcement of Celsis’ patent rights in this case, and the general importance of the patent system in encouraging innovation. As the court found that all four preliminary injunction factors favored Celsis, the decision of the District Court was AFFIRMED.