Cryolife, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-559-SLR, March 10, 2015.

Robinson, J.  Defendant Medafor’s motion for a preliminary injunction is granted.

This is a declaratory judgment action.  The disputed technology relates to topically applied clotting material.  The court finds that defendant has shown a likelihood of success on infringement since the constructions offered by defendant for “Porous particles” and “allowing said porous particles to remain in contact with the blood while clotting initiates” are consistent with the specification and plaintiff has not offered non-infringement arguments consistent with these constructions.  Defendant has also shown likelihood of success on validity, and carried its burden on the remaining prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief. The balance of hardships weighs in favor of defendant because the parties’ products compete and are targeted to the same customers and hospitals.

The judge further noted in a footnote that citations to a chart with abbreviations added to the court’s burden and citations in accordance with D.Del. LR 7.1.3(a)(6) should be followed.