THE PAW WASH, LLC. V. PAW PLUNGER, LLC., No. 12-1240 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ THE PAW WASH, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PAW PLUNGER, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, __________________________ 2012-1240 __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in case no. 08-CV-0113, Judge Gary A. Fenner. __________________________ Decided: December 14, 2012 __________________________ RICHARD L. BROPHY, Armstrong Teasdale, LLP, of St Louis, Missouri, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief was JENNIFER E. HOEKEL. DAVID L. REIN, JR., Finch & Campbell, LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued for defendant-appellant. __________________________ Before DYK, PLAGER, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges. PAW WASH v. PAW PLUNGER 2 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 Paw 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 391 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
