MacDermid, a specialty chemicals company headquartered in Denver, CO, USA, has announced that for the second time the Federal District Court in New Jersey has denied DuPont’s motion for a preliminary injunction. A preliminary injunction is used in order to restrain a party from going forward with a course of conduct until the case has been decided.

The decision is part of a 2006 photopolymer plate patent infringement lawsuit in which DuPont sought a preliminary injunction against certain MacDermid thermally developed flexographic printing products. MacDermid markets its thermal equipment under the LAVA trade name.

In its rulings, the court found that MacDermid has raised enough questions regarding whether the ‘859 patent (DuPont’s US Patent No 6,773,859) is invalid and that DuPont failed to show that MacDermids claim that the patent is invalid is unwarranted. The court concluded that there are substantial questions regarding whether the ‘859 patent was an “obvious combination of elements in the prior art.” According to US patent law, an invention must meet certain minimum requirements to be protected by a US patent. For example, to qualify for patent protection, an invention must be new and different from what has been known, used or described in the past.

Michael Siegmund, president, MacDermid Printing Solutions, says, “MacDermid is a technology-based company that makes a considerable investment in R&D. Our philosophy, culture and business practices are such that we would not, and do not, knowingly infringe any valid patent.”

Scot Benson, vice president, sales, added, “This has been our stance from the beginning. We were very confident that the court would continue to uphold our position; and they have.”