Overview

A court may grant an injunction to bar ongoing infringement according to the principles of equity.

The several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.

— 35 U.S. Code § 283.

There is no general rule that an injunction will issue upon a finding of validity and infringement.

eBay abolishes our general rule that an injunction normally will issue when a patent is found to have been valid and infringed.

— Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F. 3d 1142, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Instead, district court has discretion which must be consistent with the principles of equity.

the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity.

— eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange, Ll, 547 US 388, 394 (S. Ct. 2006).

A patentee must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant an injunction.

A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

— eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange, Ll, 547 US 388, 391 (S. Ct. 2006).

The obligation to satisfy this test does not negate the right to exclusivity conferred in a patent.

The Court in eBay did not hold that there is a presumption against exclusivity on successful infringement litigation. The Court did not cancel 35 U.S.C. § 154[...] The Court held that equitable aspects should always be considered [...] Statutory and historical as well as commercial considerations impinge on every equitable determination.

— Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F. 3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Courts often grant injunctions when both patentee and infringer are direct competitors in selling the patented invention.

In Advanced Cardiovascular Sys. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc., 579 F.Supp.2d 554 (D.Del.2008), the court observed that: Courts awarding permanent injunctions typically do so under circumstances where plaintiff practices its invention and is a direct market competitor.

— Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F. 3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012).