ROBERT BOSCH LLC. V. PYLON MANUFACTURING CORP.
- We take this opportunity to put the question to rest and confirm that eBay jettisoned the presumption of irreparable harm as it applies to determining the appropriateness of injunctive relief. In so holding, we join at least two of our sister circuits that have reached the same conclusion as it relates to a similar presumption in copy-right infringement matters.
- Although eBay abolishes our general rule that an in-junction normally will issue when a patent is found to have been valid and infringed, it does not swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. In other words, even though a successful patent infringement plaintiff can no longer rely on presumptions or other short-cuts to support a request for a permanent injunction, it does not follow that courts should entirely ignore the fundamental nature of patents as property rights granting the owner the right to exclude.
- [W]ithout additional facts showing that the presence of additional competitors renders the infringer’s harm reparable, the absence of a two-supplier market does not weigh against a finding of irreparable harm.
- Injuries that affect a “non-core” aspect of a patentee’s business are equally capable of being irreparable as ones that affect more significant operations.
- A district court should assess whether a damage remedy is a meaningful one in light of the financial condition of the infringer before the alternative of money damages can be deemed adequate. While competitive harms theoretically can be offset by monetary payments in certain circumstances, the likely availability of those monetary payments helps define the circumstances in which this is so.
- A party cannot escape an injunction simply because it is smaller than the patentee or because its primary product is an infringing one.
