Irreparable harm’s causal nexus shown where users preferred the patented features over alternatives

Apple Inc. v. Samsung was decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of California. There, the jury awarded Plaintiff-Apple $119,625,000 for Defendant-Samsung’s infringement of three of five asserted patents. Following the verdict, the district court denied Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction, finding that Apple would not suffer irreparable harm. Apple …

Preliminary injunction vacated because defendant’s obviousness argument raised a substantial question of invalidity

Sciele Pharma v. Lupin was decided on July 1, 2012 on appeal from the District of Delaware. The district court granted plaintiff Sciele a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant Lupin from “further importation and sales of its generic [product].” Lupin appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded. “In deciding whether …

Past harms of competitor’s lost market share, revenues, and brand recognition support permanent injunction

I4I v. Microsoft was decided on March 9, 2010 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved a host of issues, but this post will only deal with the injunction. In the case, the jury found that defendant Microsoft willfully infringed the asserted claims of the patent.  After trial, …

Price erosion and loss of market share tip the balance of the hardships in favor of an injunction

Canon v. GCC is a non-precedential opinion decided on January 25, 2008 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court granted plaintiff Canon a preliminary injunction. Defendant GCC appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction grant. A patent owner seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “(1) a reasonable likelihood …

Courts must apply the four-factor test before granting or denying a permanent injunction

eBay v. MerkExchange was decided by the Supreme Court on May 15, 2006 on appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia. Following a jury verdict of infringement, the district court denied plaintiff MerkExchange’s motion for a permanent injunction. The Federal Circuit reversed and ruled that MerkExchange was entitled to an injunction, applying …