Replies to post #3811 on Insmed Inc (INSM)

[mpetisth1]

First case using four factor test with WILLFUL INFRINGMENT!!

"Never had the will nor the means to implement the patent itself" = DNA/TRCA

Finisar v. DirectTV Group (E.D. Tex. 2006).

A jury found willful infringement by DirectTV. However, in the post-trial hearing, the court denied Finisar's motion for injunctive relief and instead granted a compulsory license.

Reasoning from the transcript:

* Patentee has no irreparable harm because it never made or licensed the invention and DirectTV has money to pay damages. [The court found no presumption of irreparable harm.]
* Because there are only two major competitors in the "market" (DirectTV and EchoStar), an injunction against DirectTV could create a de facto monopoly in EchoStar's favor.
* A compulsory license will adequately compensate Finisar -- "especially since Finisar never had the will nor the means to implement the patent itself."
* Hardship to DirectTV would be enormous. Thousands of employees out of work . . . 15 million lose the ability to watch TV . . . ripple effect . . . "some would say this is a blessing."
**************************************************
^^Held: The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law 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. The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. These principles apply with equal force to Patent Act disputes. "[A] major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied." Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320. Nothing in the Act indicates such a departure. Pp. 2-6.^


"You basher boys want to try and explain how since the jury awarded a royalty, the judge could get past (2)?
^^(2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury;^^ Not to mention 1,3,4!!! "

BY PORTX YMB