'eBay' Ended Presumption Of Irreparable Harm In Determining The Appropriateness Of Injunctive Relief, But The Fundamental Nature Of Patents As Property Rights May Not Be Ignored

This article previously appeared in Last Month at the Federal Circuit November, 2011.

Judges: Bryson (dissenting-in-part), O'Malley (author), Reyna

[Appealed from D. Del., Judge Robinson]

In Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., No. 11-1096 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2011), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a motion for entry of a permanent injunction and remanded for entry of an appropriate injunction.

This is a patent infringement case involving windshield wiper technology, specifically, beam-type wiper blades ("beam blades"). Part of the business of Robert Bosch LLC ("Bosch") involves developing wiper blades, and Bosch owns patents covering various aspects of beam blade technology. In addition to its research and development efforts, Bosch sells blades to both original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket retailers. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., LLC ("Pylon") also sells beam blades and has competed with Bosch for business from retailers such as Wal-Mart.

Bosch sued Pylon, alleging infringement of several U.S. patents relating to beam blades. The district court granted a motion by Pylon to bifurcate the issue of damages. Following a jury verdict's that Pylon infringed valid claims of two of Bosch's patents, Bosch moved for entry of a permanent injunction. The district court denied the motion on the ground that Bosch failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm. The district court concluded that this is not a two-supplier market and that additional competitors exist, that wiper blades are not the core of Bosch's business, and that Bosch failed to define a relevant market, and thus found that Bosch failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm. Finding the absence of irreparable harm fatal to Bosch's motion, the district court denied the motion for an injunction without addressing the remaining equitable factors of the permanent injunction inquiry. Bosch appealed.

The Federal Court considered a jurisdictional dispute raised by Pylon, and analyzed the effect of eBay on injunctive relief, specifically, each of the four factors a patent owner must show for a permanent injunction: (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 the defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be...