Case: Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd., No. 2012-1422 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2013) (precedential). On appeal from D. Nev. Before Rader, Lourie, and O’Malley.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff Aevoe obtained a preliminary injunction in January 2012 barring sales of products accused of infringing Aevoe’s patent relating to screen protectors for electronic devices. Defendant AE Tech did not appeal the injunction, and the S&F Defendants were not added to the case before the injunction was issued. District court modified the injunction in May 2012 finding the defendants’ redesigned products violated the injunction. Defendants then appealed the injunction. CAFC dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

  • Appellate Jurisdiction: CAFC dismissed the appeal for untimeliness because defendants waited more than 30 days to appeal the original injunction. The modified injunction merely clarified the original injunction and did not substantially alter the legal relationship of the parties to reset the time to appeal. While the S&F Defendants were not expressly named except in the modified injunction, they had sufficient notice of the original injunction against them, and their addition to the modified injunction did not substantially alter the legal relationship of the parties.