A consent judgment to "obey the law" doesn't cut it

Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. accused Blue Diamond Industries, LLC and Mark Stuhlreyer of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,516,229; 5,520,481; and 7,661,903 each generally directed to drainage pipes. The parties resolved their dispute, and asked the Court to enter a consent judgment. The proposed consent judgment included the following proposed order:

1. The Defendants, and Defendants' officers, directors, owners, agents, servants, employees, successors, heirs and assigns, and any other persons in active concert or privity or in participation with any of then, are hereby enjoined from infringing PTI's Patents.

* * *

8. The Defendants ... are hereby enjoined from aiding, abetting, contributing, causing or assisting anyone or any entity in engaging in the activities prohibited by this Injunction or infringing the intellectual property described above.

Judge Presnell succinctly refused to enter this consent judgment:

The proposed consent judgment is essentially an extremely broad "obey the law" injunction requiring the Court to retain jurisdiction over this action indefinitely. The Court declines to do so.

The parties revised their proposed consent judgment (to be more direct and prohibit defendants from making, using, selling, or offering for sale mulit-pipe systems that constitute a material part of the invention covered by PTI's patents), which the Court entered.

Plastic Tubing Industries, Inc. v. Blue Diamond Industries, LLC, Case No. 6:10-cv-1227, slip op. (Dec. 28, 2010) (J. Presnell)