118LSF0 8 Aug 2016 10:47
V%p=yy<+ )14PLAINTIFF4Q_^88PDEFENDANTDISTRICTDISTRICT_NDOCKETCITEDATECTIONYEARCTIONINJUNCTIONTECHTEEANDATEEPATENTEEPAEETHODBUSMETHODCOMPETETLICENSETWILLFULTCOMPONENTGFACTOR1INGFACTOR2INGFACTOR3INGEPHARMFACTOR4INGMHARMHARMFINDINGMMKTSHAREARMageforinjunctiPRICELLARMGOODWILLARMFUTUREBUSARMINABILITYARMOTHERTS_HARMCOMMENTS_HARMNOTEST_NYSOURCET_NYLINKICT_NYTXEDSTEBAYCANDSTEBAYCACDSTEBAYDEDSSTEBAYDMASSSTEBAYDNJWARECSESOFTWARECSEELECTRONICSEELECTRICALCEMECHANICALCECHEMISTRYICEBIOTECHEVICEDRUGSHEVICEMEDICALDEVICEOTHERTECHp~c`(5KK%50s%43s%9s%8.0g%13s%41sg%td0g%ty0g%10.0g%14.0g%12.0g%34.0g%13.0g%10.0g%15.0g%10.0g%21.0g%11.0g%21.0g%25.0g%46.0g%34.0g%9.0gc%11.0gc%11.0g%11.0g%11.0g%11.0g%11.0g%305s%403s%24s%52s%8.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0gc%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0g%9.0gDISTRICT_NNDANDACTIONNJUNCTIONINJUNCTIONTECHTEEANDATEEPATENTEENPEOPEYESNOECOMPETEYESNOLENTWILLFULTTCOMPONENTTFACTOR1ENTFACTOR2ENTFACTOR3ENTFACTOR4ENTESNOSILENTYESNOSILENTYESNOSILENTYESNOSILENT88YESNOSILENTYESNOSILENTYESNOSILENTISTRICT_NISTRICT_NISTRICT_NISTRICT_NESNOSILENTESNOSILENTPLAINTIFFWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@DEFENDANTWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@DISTRICTWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@DISTRICTWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@DOCKETTWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@CITETTWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@DATETTWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ATETTWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@INJUNCTIONWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@TECHCTIONWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ANDACTIONWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@PATENTEENWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Patent Assertion EntityWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@BUSMETHODertion EntityWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@COMPETEDertion EntityWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@LICENSEDertion EntityWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@WILLFULDertion EntityWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@COMPONENTertion EntityWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Irreparable HarmEntityWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Inadequate Remedy at LawWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Balance of HardshipsLawWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Public InteresthipsLawWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ublic InteresthipsLawWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Loss of Market ShareLawWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Price Erosion ShareLawWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Loss of GoodwillareLawWw^@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Loss of Future Business Opportunity@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Infringer's Inability to Satisfy Judgment@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Other Type of Irreparable Harmy Judgment@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Comments on Irreparable Harmmy Judgment@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@NOTESts on Irreparable Harmmy Judgment@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@SOURCEs on Irreparable Harmmy Judgment@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@Lex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ex Machina webpage for injunction order@E@B@E 0\@8B B118LA\@E 8&8B@`@ @E 0\@\@ Briese Lichttechnik Verttriebs GmbHLangtonNYSD 1:09-CV-09790Doc. 477LD ?"The evidence indicates that Plaintiffs and Defendants were direct competitors."Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000207979.pdf?XpertUniverse, Inc.Cisco Sys., Inc.DED1:09-CV-001572013 WL 6118447LDWestlawNext??TransPerfect Global, Inc.MotionPoint Corp.CAND4:10-CV-02590Doc. 468LDCourt concludes that "we have two practicing entities that are in competition with each other." (Doc. 463 at 6)Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000204435.pdf??Global Traffic Techs., LLCEmtrac Sys, Inc.MND0:10-CV-041102013 WL 5964454LD?WestlawNext?Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.Mylan Pharms., Inc.DED1:09-CV-00651Doc. 242, 243LDDoc. 240 contains language re: irreparable injury in ANDA contextLex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000202815.pdf??CardSoft, Inc.VeriFone Holdings, Inc.TXED)2:08-CV-000982013 WL 5862762LDClaim for ongoing royalty severed and continued as separate action (No. 2:12-CV-00325)WestlawNext?WBIP, LLCKohler Co.MAD1:11-CV-10374Doc. 257~LDeeeDistrict court concludes that parties are "only two producers of low-Co marine gas generators," so competitors. (Doc. 257 at 2.) Doc. 274 denies motion for reconsideration.??Stryker Corp.Zimmer Inc.MIWD1:10-CV-012232013 WL 6231533yLD?"On top of all that, both parties recognize that the orthopedic pulsed lavage market consists, for practical purposes, of just two players: Stryker and Zimmer"WestlawNext?Smith & Nephew, Inc.Interlace Med., Inc.MAD1:10-CV-10951955 F. Supp. 2d 69PLD?WestlawNext??WesternGeco L.L.C.ION Geophysical Corp.TXSD+4:09-CV-01827953 F. Supp. 2d 731HLDPatentee claim for lost profits based on foreign sales, so parties counted as competitors.21WestlawNext?Halo Elecs., Inc.Pulse Elecs., Inc.NVD2:07-CV-003312013 WL 3043668FLD?"Halo has provided evidence that it directly competes with Pulse and has lost sales and customer goodwill, which is evidence of irreparable harm."WestlawNext?Alps South, LLCThe Ohio Willow Wood Co.FLMD 8:08-CV-01893Doc. 418LD?"The evidence demonstrates that [patentee] and [infringer] are direct competitiors competing in the same market." (Doc. 418 at 4)Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000114912.pdf?Allergan, Inc.Apotex Inc. et al.NCMD1:10-CV-006812013 WL 1750757LD?"Injunctions are routinely granted in HatchWaxman cases...."Patstats.org?Unicom Monitoring, LLCCencom, Inc.NJD3:06-CV-011662013 WL 1704300 LDeePatstats.org??In re Armodafinil Patent Litig.ion ('722 Patent Litigation)DED1:10-MD-02200939 F. Supp. 2d 456KDeeeeFed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to parties' motions.Cited in subsequent case??Tyco Healthcare Group LPEthicon Endo-Surgery Inc.CTD3:10-CV-00060936 F. Supp. 2d 30KD"These parties are neck-and-neck competitors...."Patstats.org?VirnetX Inc.Apple Inc.TXED)6:10-CV-00417925 F. Supp. 2d 816KDee"Apple does not directly compete with VirnetX."s separate action (No. 6:13-CV-00211). District court awarded ongoing royalty of 0.98% on product sales (Doc. No. 53).Patstats.org?Brocade Commc'ns Sys. Inc.A10 Networks, Inc.CAND5:10-CV-034282013 WL 140039KD"Brocade also shows that it is in direct competition with A10...."Patstats.org??Apple, Inc.Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.CAND5:11-CV-01846909 F. Supp. 2d 1147KD?"At the preliminary injunction phase, Apple argued, and this Court found, that Apple and Samsung are direct competitors." Order denying renewed motion for permanent injunction after remand: 2014 WL 976898.Patstats.org??E2Interactive, Inc.Blackhawk Network, LLCWIWD03:09-CV-00629Doc. 536KD?"The parties are direct competitiors...." (p. 4)Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000085197.pdf?Graphic Packaging Intern., Inc.C.W. Zumbiel Co.FLMD 3:10-CV-008912012 WL 3536983KD?"Plaintiff and Defendant are “fiercely competitive.”Patstats.org?Coloplast A/SGeneric Med. Devices, Inc.WAWD/2:10-CV-002272012 WL 3262756KD?Court finds irreparable injury due to loss of customers, loss of sales to infringer.Patstats.org?Carl Zeiss Vision Int'l GmbHSignet Armorlite, Inc.CASD3:07-CV-00894Doc. 1561 KD ?Other: decrease in power in future licensing negotiations"Signet does not dispute that it is in competition with Carl Zeiss..." (p. 3)Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000066049.pdf?Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.Sandoz, Inc.NYSD 1:08-CV-07611Doc. 338JDeeeeInjunction order only; no written opinionPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000063686.pdf?Integrated Tech. Corp.Rudolph Techs., Inc.AZD2:06-CV-02182Doc. 546JD?Infringer identified as "unnamed competitor." (p. 13 at n.5)Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000063479.pdf?Pfizer Inc.Teva Pharms. U.S.A., Inc.DED1:09-CV-00307882 F. Supp. 2d 643JDPatstats.org??Valeant Int'lWatson Pharms., Inc.FLSD 1:10-CV-20526Doc. 198JDeeeDenied injunction - found declaratory judgment under 271(e)(4)(A) rendered injunctive relief unnecessary. See for additional Hatch-Waxman cases cited in opinionLex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000061234.pdf?Gen. Elec. Co.Mitsubishi Heavy Indus. Ltd.TXND*3:10-CV-00276Doc. 640JD?District court finds that parties are competitiors in market for wind turbines (p. 54)Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000063006.pdf?Fractus, S.A.Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.TXED)6:09-CV-00203876 F. Supp. 2d 802JD"Samsung does not appear to be a direct competitor." of action (No. 6:13-CV-00210) and later dismissed pursuant to a settlementLex Machina?Motorola, Inc.Apple, Inc.ILND1:11-CV-08540869 F. Supp. 2d 901JDeeeDistrict court denied defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff Motorola's motion for permanent injunction for its asserted patent. Separate entry for district court decision (in same opinion) on injnctive relief for plaintiff's asserted patents.?Apple, Inc.Motorola, Inc.ILND1:11-CV-08540869 F. Supp. 2d 901JDDistrict court denied plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction for their asserted patents. Separate entry for district court decision (in same opinion) on injnctive relief for defendant/counterclaim-plaintiff's asserted patent.?St. Jude Med. Inc.Access Closure Inc.ARWD4:08-CV-04101Doc. 359JD?"Accordingly, the Court concludes that St. Jude and ACI compete directly in the market for vascular closure devices." (p. 3)Patstats.orghttps://ecf.arwd.uscourts.gov/doc1/0291862547?Research Found. of State Univ. of NYMylan Pharm.NJD1:09-CV-001842012 WL 1901267JD?Other: loss of qualified employeesUseful discussion of 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(4)(B) as statutory basis for injuction in Hatch-Waxman casesPatstats.org??Schering Corp.Mylan Pharm.NJD2:09-CV-06383Doc. 455JDeeeeInjunction order only; no written opinionPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000052865.pdf??Layne Christensen Co.Bro-Tech Corp. d/b/a The Purolite Co.KSD2:09-CV-02381871 F. Supp. 2d 1104JD?"[T]he court finds...that Layne does engage in commercial activity with which Purolite's infringing product would directly compete."Lex Machina?Hospira, Inc.Sandoz Int'l GmbHNJD3:09-CV-045912012 WL 1587688JDPatstats.org??Meadwestvaco Corp.Rexam PLCVAED.1:10-CV-00511Doc. 597JD ?"Two-player market" for fragrance pumpsLex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000202965.pdf?Broadcom Corp.Emulex Corp.CACD8:09-CV-01058Doc. 1090|JD?Parties are competitors for products covered by '150 and '691 patents. (p. 5). Ongoing royalty granted for 18 month "sunset period" from date of jury verdict; injunction takes effect after that periodPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000050511.pdf??Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.,Nuvasive, Inc.CASD3:08-CV-01512Doc. 460, 461JJD"Of course Warsaw competes with Nuvasive" but "potential risk to patient health and safety is too great to justify enjoining Nuvasive from continuing to sell its infringing products." (Doc. 460 at p. 8). Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000041328.pdf?Conceptus, Inc.Hologic, Inc.CAND3:09-CV-022802012 WL 440649JD?"Since [infringer's product]'s launch, Conceptus has had to compete." Fed. Cir. granted parties joint motion to remand. Permanent injunction entered after remand by mutual agreement of parties. (Doc. 555).Lex Machina??Accentra, Inc.Staples, Inc.CACD2:07-CV-05862851 F. Supp. 2d 1205$J`DDistrict court set aside jury's willfulness finding on JMOL.Patstats.org??Eli Lilly and CompanyActavisNJD2:07-CV-03770Doc. 748J`DeeeeInjunction order only; no written opinion.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000039353.pdf??ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.Verizon Communications, Inc.VAED.2:10-CV-00248827 F. Supp. 2d 641 J`D?"ActiveVideo and Verizon are indirect competitiors." Finds that patentee's technology is NOT a "small component" of infringer's online TV service. Ongoing royalty granted during "sunset period" of approx. 6 months.Patstats.org?Hurricane Shooters, LLCEMI Yoshi Inc.FLMD 8:10-CV-00762Doc. 144J`DeeeeInjunction order only; no written opinion.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000035655.pdf?The Paw Wash LLCPaw Plunger LLCMOWD4:08-CV-00113Doc. 44J`D??Pro se defendant. Injunction lifted after appeal pursuant to settlement (Docs. 58-59.)Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000035210.pdf?Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbHGlenmark Pharms., Inc. USANJD2:07-CV-05855821 F. Supp. 2d 681I`D?Lex Machina??Versata Software Inc.SAP Am., Inc.TXED)2:07-CV-001532011 WL 4017944I`D?"[I]t cannot be reasonably disputed that Versata is a direct competitor of SAP."Lex Machina?Lighting Ballast Control LLCPhilips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.TXND*7:09-CV-00029814 F. Supp. 2d 665I`DeeePlaintiff is subsidiary of AcaciaPatstats.org?Belden Tech. Inc.Superior Essex Communications LPDED1:08-CV-00063802 F. Supp. 2d 555I`D"Plaintiffs and defendants are direct competitors...." Willfulness bifurcated in D. Del. but never decided in this case.Patstats.org??Peach State Labs, Inc.Envtl. Mfg. Solutions, LLCFLMD 6:09-CV-00395Doc. 276I`D?"In the present case, the record reflects that...EMS was in direct competition with Peach State..." Patentee granted "implied license" to partners "to practice the '279 patent"Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000029121.pdf?Pozen Inc.Par Pharma. Inc.TXED)6:08-CV-00437800 F. Supp. 2d 789I`D?Patstats.org?Inventio AGOtis Elevator Co.NYSD 1:06-CV-053772011 WL 3480946I`D?Other: inability to quantify harmCompetition b/w parent company of plaintiff (Schindler) and defendantPatstats.org?Midtronics Inc.Aurora PerformanceILND1:06-CV-03917800 F. Supp. 2d 970; Doc. 196I`D?Plaintiff's proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law (Doc. 196) expressly adopted by district courtPatstats.orghttps://law.lexmachina.com/documents/4000219914?SoitecMEMC Elec. Materials, Inc.DED1:08-CV-002922011 WL 2748725I`DeDistrict court denies injunction for competitors; finds that patentee's market share has actually increased since infringer entered market, and that patentee has not proven monetary damages insufficient to compensate for harmPatstats.org??LG Elecs. USA IncWhirlpool Corp.DED1:08-CV-00234798 F. Supp. 2d 541yI`DDenies injunction despite competition in part b/c of "lack of specific evidence tying Whirlpool's lost sales to LG's infringement in the multi-competitor refrigerator market."Patstats.org??Metso Minerals Inc.Powerscreen Int'l Distrib. Ltd.NYED2:06-CV-01446788 F. Supp. 2d 71UI`D?Patstats.org?ePlus, Inc.Lawson Software, Inc.VAED.3:09-CV-006202011 WL 2119410RI`D?Lost Future R&D: [D]iver[sion of] several millions of dollars away from research, development, and business opportunities toward litigation costs. Other: Lost sales for products and services related to the patented software; burden of policing infringement if injunction denied."The fact that ePlus and Lawson directly compete in a marketplace is a significant factor in favor of a finding of irreparable injury. "Lex Machina?3D Sys., Inc.Envisiontec, Inc.MIED2:05-CV-74891Doc. 307, 3096I`DeeeeDistrict court found insufficient evidence to support injunction. Case settled before damages determinationLex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000015193.pdf?B. Braun Melsungen AGTerumo Corp.DED1:09-CV-00347778 F. Supp. 2d 5062I`D?Goodwill: harm to reputation as an innovatorDefendant did not oppose entry of injunctive relief "entirely" - only contested scope of relief.Patstats.org??WhitServe LLCComputer Packages, Inc.CTD3:06-CV-01935Doc. 481I`Deee"Because Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence with respect to the first eBay factor, the motion for permanent injunction is denied."Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000013023.pdf?Harris Corp.Fed. Express Corp.FLMD 6:07-CV-01819Doc. 302; 2011 WL 3627379H`D?Additional patents-in-suit: 7,428,412 and 7,444,146Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000239209.pdf?Douglas Dynamics, LLCBuyers Prods. Co.WIWD03:09-CV-00261Doc. 530H`DFed Cir reversed (2-1 decision) district court denial of permanent injunction. Ongoing royalty of 6.225% for post-verdict sales.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000011102.pdf?K-TecVita-MixUTD-2:06-CV-00108765 F. Supp. 2d 1304H`D?Patstats.org?Affinity Labs of Texas LLCBMW N. Am., LLCTXED)9:08-CV-00164Doc. 551H`DeeeeTranscript of post-trial hearing on permanent injunction unavailable on PACER. Ongoing royalty decision: 783 F. Supp. 2d 891Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000219912.pdf?Ernie Ball Inc.EarvanaCACD5:06-CV-003842011 WL 201816H`DAppeal found patent invalid on indefiniteness, so no need to go into discussion of injunctionPatstats.org??Brigham and Women's Hospital, Inc.Teva Pharms.DED1:08-CV-00464Doc. 262H`DeeeeSplit tech between chemistry (5) and drugs (7)Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000005137.pdf??Bendix Comm. Veh. Sys. Inc.Haldex Brake Prods. Corp.OHND!1:09-CV-001762011 WL 14372H`D?Patstats.org?Otsuka Pharm.Sandoz, Inc.NJD3:07-CV-010002010 WL 4596324H@DAppeal on other issuesPatstats.org??Robert Bosch, LLCPylon Mfg. Co.DED1:08-CV-00542748 F. Supp. 2d 383H@DeeeOther factors not discussed since no irreparable harmPatstats.org??Stone Strong, LLCDelzotto Prods. of Fla., Inc.FLMD 5:08-CV-005032010 WL 4259371H@D eeeeFed. Cir. reversed on other grounds (obviousness)Patstats.org?Streck, Inc.Research & Diagnostic Sys., Inc.NED8:06-CV-00458Doc. 386gH@D?Technology is multiparameter blood test; medical device appears to be closest tech fitPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000007548.pdf?O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd.Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.TXED)2:04-CV-000322010 WL 8753254 oc. 424; 2007 WL 869576dH@DeeeeDistrict court reinstates permanent injunction after appeal to federal circuit and remand (Fed. Cir. vacated jury verdict, infringement, and perament injunction). District court found infringement not willful on remand, but injunction decision sealed. (Doc. 662) Doc. 424 is injunction decision before initial appeal; injunction decision after appeal (Doc. 662) is sealed, but briefing to Fed. Cir. on 2nd appeal indicates that district court relied on reasoning in initial injunction decision.Patstats.orgttp://documents.lexmachina.com/190336.pdf?Marine Polymer Techs., Inc.HemCon Inc.NHD1:06-CV-00100Doc. 439YH@DeeeeSealed injunction decision (Doc. 438).Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000027746.pdf?Input/Output, Inc. (ION)Sercel, Inc.TXED)5:06-CV-002362010 WL 3911378YH@D?Ongoing damages opinion at 2011 WL 537858Patstats.org?ClearValue, Inc.Pearl River Polymers, Inc.TXED)6:06-CV-00197735 F. Supp. 2d 5606H@D?Injunction subsequently dissolved on plaintiff's motion: Doc. 630, 2012-07-09Patstats.org?ReedHycalog UK, Ltd.Diamond Innovations IncTXED)6:08-CV-003252010 WL 32383126H@D ?Additional patents: 6797326, 6861098, 6861098, 6861098Patstats.org?Retractable Techs., Inc.Occupational & Med. Innovations, Ltd. (OMI)TXED)6:08-CV-001202010 WL 31996245H@D?Lex Machina?Soverain Software LLCNewegg, Inc.TXED)6:07-CV-00511836 F. Supp. 2d 4625H@DOngoing royalty of $0.15 per transaction awardedPatstats.org?Alcon, Inc.Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.DED1:06-CV-002342010 WL 3081327/H@DNotice of Appeal filed before perm. inj. granted. On appeal, Fed. Cir. dismissed pursuant to parties' agreement.Cited in subsequent case??In re Alfuzosin Hydrochloride Patent Litig.DED1:08-MD-01941Doc. 176-H@DeeeeMerits decision: 2010 WL 1956287Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000024341.pdf??Dow Chem. Corp.Nova Chems. Corp.DED1:05-CV-007372010 WL 3083023)H@DPatstats.org??Custom Designs of Nashville Inc.Alsa Corp.TNMD'3:08-CV-00665727 F. Supp. 2d 719&H@D ?Patstats.org?Cordance Corp.Amazon.com, Inc.DED1:06-CV-00491730 F. Supp. 2d 333!H@DPatstats.org??Mitsubushi Chem. Corp.Barr LaboratoriesNYSD 1:07-CV-11614Doc. 118 H@DeeeeFindings of fact and conclusions of law re infringement and invalidity at 718 F.Supp.2d 382Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000080248.pdf?WoodsDeangelo Marine Exhaust, Inc.FLSD 9:08-CV-81569Doc. 260 H@D?Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000219938.pdf?LaserDynamics IncQuanta Computer, IncTXED)2:06-CV-003482010 WL 2574059H@DPatstats.org?Smith & Nephew Inc.Arthrex, Inc.TXED)2:07-CV-003352010 WL 2522428G@D?Patstats.org?RichterSupa Tech.NVD2:08-CV-00005Doc. 145G@DeeeePatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000019490.pdf?Retractable Techs., Inc.Becton, Dickinson & Co.TXED)2:07-CV-002502010 WL 9034911G@D?Other: difficulty in estimating monetary damagesPatstats.org?Tyco Healthcare Group LP et alApplied Medical Resources GroupTXED)9:09-CV-00176Doc. 138G@DPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000028783.pdf?Parker-Hannifin Corp.Wix Filtration Corp.OHND!1:07-CV-01374Doc. 236G@D?Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000089836.pdf?Humanscale Corp.CompX Int'l Inc.VAED.3:09-CV-000862010 WL 1779963G@DPatstats.org?Johnson & Johnson Vision CareCIBA Vision Corp.FLMD 3:05-CV-00135712 F. Supp. 2d 1285G@DPatstats.org?Ricoh Co.Quanta Computer Inc.WIWD03:06-CV-004622010 WL 1607908G@DPatstats.org?Presidio ComponentsAmer. Tech. CeramicsCASD3:08-CV-00335723 F. Supp. 2d 1284G@D"[T]he Court cannot say that Presidio has carried its burden of demonstrating that ATC and it were direct competitors." Permanent injunction granted after remand from Fed. Cir. (Aug. 12, 2013).Patstats.org?JudkinsHT Window Fashions Corp.PAWD&2:07-CV-00251704 F. Supp. 2d 470G@D?Other: harm to business relationships/breach of promise not to license to third partiesPatstats.org?Eli Lilly & Co.Sicor Pharms, Inc.INSD1:06-CV-00238705 F. Supp. 2d 971G@DeeeeCited in subsequent case?Arlington Indus. Inc.Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.PAMD%3:01-CV-004852010 WL 817519G@D?Willful infringement finding vacated by district court (Doc. 733 at 20-23, 64)Patstats.org?Mytee Prods., Inc.Harris Research, Inc.CASD3:06-CV-01854Doc. 277jG@D?"Indirect competitors"Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000007037.pdf?Emcore Corp.Optium Corp.PAWD&2:07-CV-003262010 WL 235126eG@D No injunction even though parties are competitors; infringing product no longer soldPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000008401.pdf?Innovention Toys, LLCMGA Entm't, Inc.LAED2:07-CV-06510Doc. 220cG@D ?Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000028312.pdf?I-Flow Corp.Apex Med. Tech., IncCASD3:07-CV-012002010 WL 141402^G@D?Other: loss of right to control patent license agreement, loss of competitive advantagePatstats.org?IGTBally Gaming Int'l Inc.DED1:06-CV-00282675 F. Supp. 2d 487MG DeeDistrict court finds that "competitive landscape is unclear," although the parties do seem to be competing in some markets for sales of slot machines (with other competitors as well)Patstats.org??Creative Internet Advertising Corp.Yahoo Inc.TXED)6:07-CV-00354674 F. Supp. 2d 847@G DeePlaintiff is subsidiary of Acacia. Ongoing royalty rate of 23% grantedPatstats.org?Japan Cash Machine Co.MEI, Inc.NVD2:05-CV-01433Doc. 374G D?Doc. 368 contains short discussion of motion for permanent injunction and district court order granting itPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000006999.pdf?Cummins-Allison CorpSBM Co., Ltd.TXED)9:07-CV-00196Doc. 219, 221G D?Doc. 201 is transcript of injunction hearing w/district court's reasoningPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4000070774.pdf?Monsanto Co.BowmanINSD2:07-CV-00283686 F. Supp. 2d 834F DeeeeDistrict court does not explain how eBay factors are applied in granting injunctionPatstats.org?The Western Union Co.Moneygram InternationalTXWD,1:07-CV-003722009 WL 8660103F D?Tech may vary by individual patent re: references to computersPatstats.org?Eli Lilly & Co.Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.INSD1:06-CV-01017657 F. Supp. 2d 967F DeeeePreliminary injunction decision (Doc. 636) has relevant reasoning.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/281430.pdf?Flexiteek Ams., Inc.PlasTEAK, Inc.FLSD 0:08-CV-609962009 WL 2957310F D ?Injunction subsequently vacated due to PTO reexamination finding infringed claim invalidPatstats.org?Spectralytics Inc.Cordis Corp.MND0:05-CV-01464650 F. Supp. 2d 900F DDistrict court does not explain basis for irreparable harm (or other eBay factors)Patstats.org?Unigene Laboratories, Inc.Apotex Inc. et al.NYSD 1:06-CV-055712009 WL 2762706F DeeeePatstats.org?August Tech. Corp.Camtek Ltd.MND0:05-CV-01396Doc. 547F D?Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000012234.pdf?Merck Sharp & Dohme Pharm. SRLTeva Pharm. USA, Inc.NJD3:07-CV-015962009 WL 3153316F DPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000012235.pdf??Finjan Software Ltd.Secure Computing Corp.DED1:06-CV-003592009 WL 2524495F D?Injunction subsequently lifted at parties' request: Doc. 375, 2012-11-26Patstats.org??i4i LPMicrosoft Corp.TXED)6:07-CV-00113670 F. Supp. 2d 568F D?Patstats.org?Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.Mylan Pharms.NJD2:06-CV-03462Doc. 143F DeeeePatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/286703.pdf??Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.,Globus Med., Inc.PAED$2:06-CV-04248637 F. Supp. 2d 290F DeeePatstats.org?iLight Techs., Inc.Fallon Luminous Prods. Corp.TNMD'2:06-CV-00025Doc. 314F D Injunction hearing transcript: Doc. 290.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000030759.pdf?Transamerica Life Ins. Co.Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.IAND 1:06-CV-00110625 F. Supp. 2d 702F D ?Other: loss of right to exclude [defendant] from practicing [patentees] invention in the futurePatstats.org?Haemonetics Corp.Baxter Healthcare Corp.MAD1:05-CV-12572Doc. 328F D?Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000030738.pdf??Hypoxico Inc.Colorado Altitude TrainingNYSD 1:02-CV-06191630 F. Supp. 2d 319~F DeeePatstats.org?Koninklijke Philips Elecs. NVPower Media CD Tek, Inc.CACD2:07-CV-04788Doc. 176vF DNo reasoning given for court's decision any of 4 eBay factors.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/284256.pdf??Mass Eng'd Design, Inc.Ergotron, Inc.TXED)2:06-CV-00272633 F. Supp. 2d 361TF D?Lex Machina?Bard Peripheral VascularW.L. Gore & Assocs., IncAZD2:03-CV-005972009 WL 920300CF DeeStrong public interest rationale for denying injunction. (District Court at *6-*9. Ongoing royalty rate of 12.5% to 20% awarded for Gore's various types of infringing grafts.Patstats.org?KowalskiMommy Gina Tuna ResourcesHID 1:06-CV-001822009 WL 856006BF D ?Other: [I]nfringement represents irreparable harm to [patentees] rights as patent holder. The right to exclude is one of the basic rights of a patent holder.Patstats.org?Joyal Prods., Inc.Johnson Elec. N. Am., Inc.NJD3:04-CV-051722009 WL 512156#F D?Other: patent is one of plaintiffs few remaining assets; allowing continued infringement would irreparably harm [plaintiff]s ability to sell this assetCustomer-supplier relatonship in this case. (*8). Plaintiff ceased manufacturing operations 3 years after defendant began infringing. (Footnote 2.) '015 patent is one of plaintiff's few remaining assets.Patstats.org??Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.Rambus Inc.CAND5:00-CV-20905609 F. Supp. 2d 951F D?Lost Future Business / R&D: harm of being shut out of future technological standardsAdditional patent: 6452863. Court orders parties to negotiate on amount of ongoing royalty.Patstats.org??Global Traffic Techs. LLCTomar Elecs., IncMND0:05-CV-00756Doc. 374F D?Goodwill: loss of reputation for innovationDefault judgment against defendant as sanction for misconduct, but contested entry of permanent injunctionPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/278997.pdf?U.S. Philips Corp.Iwasaki Elec. CoNYSD 1:03-CV-00172607 F. Supp. 2d 470E DTECH: High-pressure mercury vapor discharge lamp. Involves purportedly novel use of chemical substances.Patstats.org?Ariba Inc.Emptoris Inc.TXED)9:07-CV-00090Doc. 329E D?Transcript of injunction hearing contains court's reasoning (Doc. No. 357). "[T]hese companies are direct competitors." (p. 42).Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/264344.pdf?Telcordia Techs., Inc.Cisco Sys., Inc.DED1:04-CV-00876592 F. Supp. 2d 727E DeeCourt does not consider final two eBay factors (footnote 11). Court orders parties to negotiate on amount of ongoing royalty.Patstats.org??Funai Elec. Co., Ltd.Daewoo Elecs. Corp.CAND3:04-CV-01830593 F. Supp. 2d 1088E D?Additional patent: RE37332Patstats.org??Sensormatic Elec. Corp.The Tag Co.FLSD 9:06-CV-81105632 F. Supp. 2d 1147ED?Patstats.org?Vertical Doors Inc.J.T. Bonn Inc.CACD8:05-CV-00905Doc. 468ED?"VDI seeks to enjoin a direct competitior, a fact alone that may seve as a sufficient basis for granting a permanent injunction." (p. 5)Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000009410.pdf??Power Integrations, Inc.Fairchild Semiconductor Intern.DED1:04-CV-013712008 WL 5210843ED?Patstats.org??Smith & Nephew Inc.Arthrex Inc.ORD#3:04-CV-00029629 F. Supp. 2d 1176ED?Other: lost of sales of related products to patented product; harm from lost sales by nonexclusive licenseePatent owner (individual doctor) granted exclusive license to Smith and Nephew. Injunction continued after remand from Fed Cir - see 2013 WL 5206244.Patstats.org?American Calcar Inc.American Honda Motor Co.CASD3:06-CV-02433Doc. 548EDPatentee's demand for ongoing royalty as alternative to permanent injunction not decided by court (presumably because it found patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct)Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/278182.pdf?Callaway Golf Co.Acushnet Co.DED1:06-CV-00091585 F. Supp. 2d 600ED ?Patstats.org??Cam Guard Sys., Inc.Smart Sys. Techs, Inc.CACD8:07-CV-01051Doc. 226ED"Plaintiff Cam Guard Systems, Inc. (Cam Guard) and Defendant Smart Systems Technologies, Inc. (SST) compete with each other in the field of temporary surveillance equipment." 2008 WL 5252199, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008). No explanation in injunction decision about what qualified as irreparable harm (conclusory).Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/278227.pdf??Becton Dickinson Co.Tyco HealthcareDED1:02-CV-016942008 WL 4745882ED?Found not willful on JMOL (2006 WL 890995).Patstats.org??Extreme Networks, Inc.Enterasys Networks, Inc.WIWD03:07-CV-002292008 WL 4756498ED?Injunction continued after Fed Cir decision. See Doc. 526 at https://law.lexmachina.com/documents/4000013545Patstats.org?Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.Medtronic Vascular, Inc.DED1:98-CV-00080579 F. Supp. 2d 554EDPatstats.org??Gemtron Corp.Saint-Gobain Corp.MIWD1:04-CV-00387Doc. 831EDReasoning for decision in Exhibit A to Doc. 831. No explanation as to irreparable harm.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000002732.pdf?Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies Inc.Quan Emerteq Corp.TXED)9:06-CV-00121Doc. 247, 248dED?Transcript of permanent injunction hearing Doc. 247; Injunction on one of the infringing products was stayed conditional on payment into escrow account for each infringing product sold.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/279960.pdf?TruePosition, Inc.Andrew Corp.DED1:05-CV-00747568 F. Supp. 2d 500PED?"The parties compete in both domestic and foreign markets for cell phone location technologies." (p. 505) Fed. Cir. aff'd without opinion.Patstats.org??Emory Univ.Nova BiogenticsGAND 1:06-CV-001412008 WL 2945476JED?Court grants injunction even though, at time of trial, defendant company is dissolved and no longer produces the infringing product.Patstats.org?Anascape, Ltd.Nintendo of Am.TXED)9:06-CV-00158Doc. 384, 395HED?Lost Future Business / R&D: loss of opportunity to go forwardLex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/239929.pdf?Grantley Patent Holding, Ltd.Clear Channel Communications, Inc.TXED)9:06-CV-00259Doc. 244, 245ED '824 patent probably qualifies as 2: Electronics. Reasoning for decision in transcript of hearing on post-trial motions (Doc. 245). Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to parties' agreement.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/235220.pdf?Trading Tech. Int'leSpeedILND1:04-CV-053122008 WL 4531371 ED?Patstats.org?KowalskiOcean Duke Corp.HID 1:04-CV-00055Doc. 270DD eeeeeBay not discussed in Court Order. Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to parties' agreement.Patstats.orghttps://law.lexmachina.com/documents/2000009508?Power-One, Inc.Artesyn Techs., Inc. (Emerson)TXED)2:05-CV-004632008 WL 1746636DD?Other: virtually impossible to calculate [patentee]s future loss with any reasonable precisions, and therefore compensatory damages would be unsuitalbe for amending the ongoing injuryFed. Cir. aff'd on different grounds.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/279959.pdf?Fresenius USA, Inc.Baxter Int'l Inc.CAND4:03-CV-014312008 WL 928496DD?Fed. Cir. said although district court did not abuse discretion in granting perm. inj., Fed. Cir. would still vacate and remand in light of the reversal of JMOL.Patstats.org??Chase Med., L.P.CHF Techs., Inc.TXND*3:04-CV-02570Doc. 311DD?Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to parties' agreement.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/224196.pdf?Ecolab, Inc.FMC Corp.MND0:05-CV-00831Doc. 529DDeeee?Other: loss of sales of convoyed goodsSee also Doc. 502 (denying motion for permanent injunction). Stipulated entry of permanent injunction in 2010 after appeal to Fed CirPatstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/234959.pdf?Orion IP, LLCMercedes-Benz USATXED)6:05-CV-003222008 WL 8856865DDeeJury verdict of willfulness before Seagate, but district court refused to enter judgment of willfulness post-Seagate; judge also awarded post-verdict royalty to Orion.Patstats.org?Avid Identification Sys.Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.TXED)2:04-CV-001832008 WL 819962DDeeeeInjunction on patent infringement claim denied to due "Avid's unclean hands" re: inequitable conduct." Whether the parties are competitors is not mentioned, but opinion refers to defendants' products, which presumably compete.Patstats.org?Blackboard Inc.Desire2Learn Inc.TXED)9:06-CV-00155Doc. 363DDTranscript of injunction hearing (Doc. 433)Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/234929.pdf?AmgenF. Hoffman-LaRoche Ltd.MAD1:05-CV-12237Doc. 1675; 581 F. Supp. 2d 1602d 160DDPermanent injunction granted in 581 F.Supp.2d 160 while appeal pending. No reasoning given for finding that all 4 eBay factors satisfied. Fed. Cir. said it won't disturb the injunction.Patstats.orghttps://law.lexmachina.com/documents/234866??Cygnus Telecommunications Tech., LLCWorldPort CommunicationsCAND5:02-CV-001442008 WL 506182DDeeePatent found invalid. Fed. Cir. aff'd district court's ruling w/out opinion.Patstats.org??ResQNet.com, Inc.Lansa, Inc.NYSD 1:01-CV-03578533 F. Supp. 2d 397DDSeparate award by the district court of an ongoing, "compulsory license" to Lansa. On appeal, Fed. Cir. affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded in part; it did not talk about permanent injunction.rt; it did not talk about permanent injunction.Patstats.org?Respironics, Inc.Invacare Corp.PAWD&2:04-CV-003362008 WL 111983DDPatstats.org?Broadcom Corp.Qualcomm, Inc.CACD8:05-CV-00467Doc. 996{DD?Lost Future Business / R&D: exclusionary effect on future competition for technological features absent an injunctionPlaintiff granted ongoing royalty for a "sunset period" (until 1/31/09) for 2 of 3 infringed patents, after which permanent injunction comes into effect.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/205879.pdf??DePuy Spine, Inc.Medtronic Sofamor DAMAD1:01-CV-10165Doc. 581, 585qDD?District Court: "The grounds for said permanent injunction are set forth in the Plaintiff's Memoranda, which are hereby adopted by the Court." (Doc. 581 at p. 2.)Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/279283.pdf??Celerity, Inc.Ultra Clean Holding Inc.CAND3:05-CV-04374Doc. 551\DD?District Court grants permanent injunction "for the reasons stated by plaintiff." (p. 1); Fed. Cir. aff'd without opinion.Patstats.orghttps://law.lexmachina.com/documents/4000161733??Acumed, LLCStryker Corp.ORD#3:04-CV-005132007 WL 4180682RDD?Patstats.org?Martek Biosciences Corp.Nutrinova, Inc.DED1:03-CV-00896520 F. Supp. 2d 537=DD ?Patstats.org??Sundance, Inc.DeMonte Fabricating Ltd.MIED2:02-CV-735432007 WL 30536622DDCourt previously denied permanent injunction (2007 WL 37742) but then subsequently granted permanent injunction. Fed. Cir. reversed, holding the patent invalid for obviousness.Patstats.org?Koninklijke Philips Elecs. NVInt'l Disc Mfrs.CACD2:06-CV-02468Doc. 302(order unavailable online))DDeeee?PDF of injunction order unavailable on Lex Machina and PACER.Lex Machinahttps://law.lexmachina.com/cases/4076#docket-1404949??Baden Sports, Inc.Kabushiki Kaisha MoltenWAWD/2:06-CV-002102007 WL 2790777DD (1) Willingness to license patent described in footnote 1 of district cour'ts opinion. (2) District court amended the permanent injunction order. (3) On appeal, Fed. Cir. briefly touched upon permanent injunction, but did not talk in depth. (4) Fed. Cir. reversed district court on Lanham Act grounds.Patstats.org?Telecomm. Sys, Inc.Mobile 365, Inc.EDVA3:06-CV-00485Doc. 224DDDistrict Court granted permanent injunction but had it stayed pending appeal (Doc. 272). Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to parties' agreement.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/190170.pdf?Allan Block Corp.E. Dillon & Co.MND0:04-CV-03511509 F. Supp. 2d 795CD On appeal, Fed. Cir. aff'd without opinion.Patstats.org?Johns Hopkins Univ.Datascope Corp.MDD1:05-CV-00759513 F. Supp. 2d 578CD?"[Defendant]'s product competes directly with the Plaintiffs' product. In fact, it is the only competition..." (p. 586)Patstats.org?Muniauction, Inc.Thomson Corp.PAWD&2:01-CV-01003502 F. Supp. 2d 477CD?Goodwill: loss of reputation for innovation"Plaintiff and defendants are direct competitors in a two-supplier market." (p. 482). District court: "There was no evidence at trial of significant, relevant licensing activity." (p. 483) But Muniauction offered sought a license from Thomson multiple times before and after patent issued, and granted a license to Freddie Mac. (Defs' Opp'n to Pl.'s Motion for Permanent Injunction, 2007 WL 1094839)Patstats.org?MercExchange, LLCeBay, Inc.VAED.2:01-CV-00736500 F. Supp. 2d 556CDMercExchange LLC founded by inventor of patents in suit. Unsuccessfully attempted to start website. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51969-2005Jan5.html. The parties settled after the SCOTUS decision.Patstats.org?Diomed, Inc.Angiodynamics, Inc.MAD1:04-CV-10019Doc. 287CDNo reasoning given by District Court for its decision on eBay factors. Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to parties' agreement.Patstats.orghttps://law.lexmachina.com/documents/279294??Sanofi-SynthelaboApotex, Inc.NYSD 1:02-CV-02255492 F. Supp. 2d 353CDHatch Waxman case; Sanofi-Aventis's patent is exclusively licensed to BristolMyers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership. Fed. Cir. aff'd on appeal (this is the Sanofi III case).Patstats.org?Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Res. Org. (CSIRO)Buffalo Tech. (USA), Inc.TXED)6:06-CV-00324492 F. Supp. 2d 600CD ?Goodwill: Patentee's reputation as a research institution has been impugned." Lost Future R&D: [D]elays in funding due to lost licensing revenue result[s] in lost opportunities to develop additional research capabilities, lost opportunities to accelerate existing projects or begin new projects.Plaintiff "is the principal scientific research organization of the Australian Federal Government." On appeal, Fed. Cir. remanded the case to district court to decide on the issue of obviousness.Patstats.org?Brooktrout, Inc.Eicon Networks Corp.TXED)2:03-CV-000592007 WL 1730112CD?Decision reinstated permanent injunction entered before eBay. Subsequent appeal dismissed because defendant had acquired plaintiff.Patstats.org?Heuft Systemtechnik GmbHIndus. Dynamics Co.CACD2:05-CV-06299Doc. 314CDeePatentee "does not currently sell any products covered by the '974 patent and has not done so since 1999, which was before the '974 patent issued." (p. 4) Patentee Heuft appealed denial of permanent injunction. On appeal, Fed. Cir. held no infringement.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000021251.pdf??Lexion Med Inc.Northgate Techs. Inc.ILND1:04-CV-05705Doc. 236CDeeeeNo reasoning given by District Court for its decision. Fed. Cir. vacated perm. inj. b/c it vacated judgment of infringement. On remand, District Court found inducing & contributory infringement, and enjoined defendant from inducing and contributing. Fed. Cir. aff'd.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/18302.pdf?Informatica Corp.Business Objects Data Integration, Inc.CAND3:02-CV-03378Doc. 694CD?Price erosion: patentee force[d]...to lower prices to competeJury found willfulness. See 489 F.Supp.2d 1075. Fed. Cir. aff'd without opinion.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/1000007579.pdf??Proveris Scientific Corp.Innovasystems, Inc.MAD1:05-CV-12424Doc. 150CDNo reasoning given by District Court for its decision. Fed. Cir. aff'd but did not talk about injunction.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/4897.pdf??MGM Well Servs., Inc.Mega Lift Sys., LLCTXSD+4:05-CV-01634505 F. Supp. 2d 359CD?Other: future damages cannot be readily calculated at this point; threat of continued infringement absent injunctionFed. Cir. aff'd without opinion.Patstats.org?800 Adept, Inc.Murex Securities, Ltd.FLMD 6:02-CV-01354505 F. Supp. 2d 1327tCD?Fed. Cir. vacated on other grounds.Patstats.org?Praxair, Inc.ATMI, Inc.DED1:03-CV-01158479 F. Supp. 2d 440dCDee"Though the quantum of evidence required is relatively unclear, the court finds that Praxair has not met its burden under eBay to put forward sufficient proof vis--vis the broad scope of the relief requested." (p. 444). Motion for Permanent Injunction denied without prejudice to renew. District Court later found the patents invalid or unenforceable.Patstats.org??O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd.Beyond Innovation Tech. Co. Ltd.TXED)2:04-CV-000322007 WL 869576^CD?Inability to Recover: all defendants are foreign corporations; little assurance that [patentee] could collect monetary damagesFed. Cir. vacated on other grounds.Patstats.org?Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc.Mylan Labs Inc.NJD2:04-CV-016892007 WL 869545]CDNo reasoning given by District Court for its decision. Fed. Cir. affirmed but did not discuss permanent injunction in its opinion.Patstats.org??AmadoMicrosoft Corp.CACD8:03-CV-00242Doc. 661VCDeVacated permanent injunction order entered pre-eBay. Awarded ongoing royalty of 12 cents per unit (triple jury's reasonable royalty award of 4 cents per unit).Patstats.orghttps://law.lexmachina.com/documents/156688??Verizon Servs. Corp.Vonage Holdings Corp.VAED.1:06-CV-00682Doc. 549QCD?No reasoning contained in order granting injunction. Reviewed Fed. Cir. decision and briefing by parties. Fed. Cir. - affirmed injunction as to 2 patents ('574 and '711 patents) and vacated for 1 patent ('880 patent) on other grounds (claim construction)Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/20105.pdf?Atlanta Attachment Co.Leggett & Platt, Inc.GAND 1:05-CV-010712007 WL 5011980DCD?Jury (doc.260) found willful infringement AFTER district court granted perm. injunction (doc.192). "[P]arties are direct competitors..." (p. 13.) Detailed reasoning re: competition and irreparable harm.Patstats.org?Novozymes A/SGenencor Int'l, Inc.DED1:05-CV-00160474 F. Supp. 2d 592=CD?Other: irreparable harm from failure to exclude competition w/patentees U.S. subsidiariesPatstats.org??Momentus Golf, Inc.Swingrite Golf Corp.IASD4:02-CV-40252Doc. 224=CD?Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/189859.pdf?Genlyte Thomas Group LLCArch. Lighting GroupMAD1:05-CV-10945Doc. 802CDOrder granting permanent injunction; no opinion. Reviewed plaintiff's motion for permanent injunction. Ongoing royalty ($67 per product) for sale of products for which there is a legally enforceable contact to provide products as of the date of judgment.Patstats.org??MPT, Inc.Marathon Labels, Inc.OHND!1:04-CV-02357505 F. Supp. 2d 401!CD ?Jury found willfulness but district court granted JMOL. Fed. Cir. reversed the grant of injunction as written, only because the injunction was too broad, covering non-infringing uses outside US.Patstats.org?Exergen Corp.CVS Corp.MAD1:01-CV-11306Doc. 256CDeLex Machinahttps://law.lexmachina.com/documents/m/6981441??Innogenetics, N.V.Abbott Labs.WIWD03:05-CV-00575578 F. Supp. 2d 1079; 2007 WL 5431017CD?Patentee's "reputation for innovation and being a market leader harmed by defendants infringementVacate by Fed Cir is really a reversal. Held evidentiary hearing on 4th factor. See 2007 WL 5431017. Jury verdict included $1.2 million in ongoing royalty. 512 F.3d at 1380.Patstats.orghttp://documents.lexmachina.com/279522.pdf?IMX, IncLendingTree, Inc.DED1:03-CV-01067469 F. Supp. 2d 203CD Unclear if products compete based on absence of evidence presented by plaintiff. (p. 226). District court holds plaintiff failed to satisfy burden of eBay's four factor test; dismisses without prejudice subject to any appeal. Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to parties' agreement.Patstats.org??Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc.GlobalSantaFe Corp.TXSD+4:03-CV-029102006 WL 3813778 CD?District court held evidentiary hearing on 4th factor. See 2007 WL 5431017. Jury verdict included $1.2 million in ongoing royalty. 512 F.3d at 1380.Patstats.org?Visto Corp.Seven Networks, Inc.TXED)2:03-CV-003332006 WL 3741891CD?Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to the parties' agreement.Patstats.org?Cybersettle, Inc.Nat'l Arbitration Forum, Inc.NJD3:04-CV-04744Doc. 73; 2006 WL 3256824 3256824CDeeeeInjunction order only; no reasoning in decision.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/190158.pdf??Black & Decker Inc.Robert Bosch Tool Corp.ILND1:04-CV-079552006 WL 3446144BD?Fed. Cir. vacated and remanded the infringement & willfulness issues due to improper claim construction by district court.Patstats.org?Color Kinetics, Inc.Super Vision Int'l, Inc.MAD1:02-CV-11137Doc. 266BD?Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/189829.pdf??Omegaflex, Inc.Parker Hannifin Corp.MAD3:02-CV-30022Doc. 142BDeeeeInjunction order only; no reasoning in decision. Parties' filings re: permanent injunction under seal; transcript unavailable online. Fed. Cir. briefs indicate that plaintiff commercialized invention and competed with defendants.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/189811.pdf??Janssen Pharm.Dr. Reddy's LaboratoriesNJD2:03-CV-06185Doc. 92BDeeeeInjunction order only; no reasoning in decision. Injunction granted on same date in related case, Janssen v. Mylan, 2:03-CV-06220Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/17074.pdf??Rosco, Inc.Mirror Lite Co.NYED1:96-CV-056582006 WL 2844400BD ?(1) Defendant counterclaimed for patent infringement. Court granted injunction to the Defendant. (2) There were two trials. Permanent Injunction granted in the first trial in 2006, but no appeal was filed until after the second trial in 2009. Fed Cir aff'd without opinion.Patstats.org?Smith & Nephew, Inc.Synthes (U.S.A.)TNWD(2:02-CV-02873466 F. Supp. 2d 978BD?Goodwill: Loss of brand name recognition." Other: lost sales for other [unpatented] orthopaedic products made by plaintiffFed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to the parties' agreement.Patstats.org?3M Innovative Properties Co.Avery Dennison Corp.MND0:01-CV-017812006 WL 2735499BD ?Other: denying injunction would force [patentee] to grant a license that [it] refused to grant before trialDistrict court re-entered injunction originally granted pre-eBay (Docs. 368, 377). See 2002 WL 31628395. Patentee "has consistently refused to execute licensing agreement" with defendant. (p. 2-3). Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal pursuant to the parties' agreement.Patstats.org?Int'l RectifierIXYS Corp.CACD2:00-CV-06756Docs. 689, 690BD?Other: loss of sales for related unpatented products; would be difficult, if not impossible, for [patentee] to prove with any reasonable degree of certainty the volume of directly competitive sales it lost as a result of [defendant]s infringement"[Patentee] and [defendant] compete in the marketplace for sales of the products emplying the '699 patent." (Doc. 589 at 4). Request to modify injunction denied 2007-05-25 (Doc. 749).Patstats.org??VodaCordis Corp.OKWD"5:03-CV-015122006 WL 2570614BDeePost-verdict royalty rate of 7.5% of infringing sales.Patstats.org?Finisar Corp.DirecTV Group Inc.TXED)1:05-CV-002642006 WL 2037617BDTranscript of injunction hearing unavailable on ECF/PACER. Relied on appellate brief in 1st appeal (parties and amicus) to Fed. Cir., which summarized the injunction hearing.Patstats.org?Pods, Inc.Porta Stor, Inc.FLMD 8:04-CV-02101Doc. 209BDeeeeInjunction order only; no reasoning in decision.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/2000027878.pdf?Litecubes, LLCNorthern Light Prods., Inc.MOED4:04-CV-004852006 WL 5700252BD ?Patstats.org?TiVoEchostar (Dish Network)TXED)2:04-CV-00001446 F. Supp. 2d 664BD?"Defendants compete directly with plaintiff."Patstats.org?Paice LLCToyota Motor Corp.TXED)2:04-CV-002112006 WL 2385139BDOngoing royalty opinion: 609 F. Supp. 2d 620. Fed. Cir. remanded the ongoing royalty, but aff'd everything else.Patstats.org?BrintonLoggansTNMD'3:04-CV-00177Doc. 153, 154, 160{BDeeeeIndividual plaintiff is competing w/defendant, according to summary judgment decision. Pro se defendant-appellant appealed only the "June 8, 2006" order and judgment. Fed. Cir. dismissed appeal for failure to pay fees on time.Lex Machinahttp://documents.lexmachina.com/205144.pdf?WaldMudhopper Oilfield Servs., Inc.OKWD"5:04-CV-016932006 WL 2128851qBD?Even though patent owner is the inventor-plaintiff, opinion says that plaintiff lost market share and but for infringement, would've sold the same number of products as defendant did. See pages 4-5.Patstats.org?z4Microsoft Corp.TXED)6:06-CV-00142434 F. Supp. 2d 437FBDClaim for ongoing royalty severed as 6:06-CV-00258 (E.D. Tex.), which was later settledPatstats.org?IFACTOR2@E @E \@B1Adequate Remedy at LawNo Adequate Remedy at LawjDISTRICT_N@E @E \@B0  %*/48=BGLPUY]bgkpuz~  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0ARWDAZDCACDCANDCASDCTDDEDEDVAFLMDFLSDGANDHIDIANDIASDILNDINSDKSDLAEDMADMDDMIEDMIWDMNDMOEDMOWDNCMDNEDNHDNJDNVDNYEDNYSDOHNDOKWDORDPAEDPAMDPAWDTNMDTNWDTXEDTXNDTXSDTXWDUTDVAEDWAWDWIWD,ANDAICT_N@E @E \@B Hatch-WaxmanNormal'INJUNCTION@E @E \@BDeniedGrantedTECHCTION@E @E \@B ^  +5CIX SoftwareElectronicsElectricalMechanicalChemistryBiotechnologyDrugsMedical DeviceOtherYESNOTION@E @E \@BYesNoPATENTEEN@E @E \@B 7Pgy UniversityIndividual InventorLarge Patent AggregatorFailed Operating CompanyPatent Holding CompanyOperating CompanyIP Subsidiary of Operating CompanyTechnology Development CompanyOther4COMPETEN@E @E \@B CompetitorsNot Competitors@WILLFULN@E @E \@B(Willful InfringerNot Willful InfringerAFACTOR1N@E @E \@B)Irreparable InjuryNo Irreparable InjurynFACTOR3N@E @E \@BV'Balance of Hardships Favors InjunctionBalance of Hardships Does Not Favor Injunction]FACTOR4N@E @E \@BE"Public Interest Favors InjunctionPublic Interest Opposes Injunction(YESNOSILENT@E @E \@BYesNo / Silent'NPEOSILENT@E @E \@B All OthersPAE(COMPONENTT@E @E \@B No / SilentYes