Public interest beats patentee's right to injunction
The IPKat just noticed this note by Dave Healey on the PATENTMATH blog (to whom goes a grateful Katpat) about the decision Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 2010-1510 (Fed. Cir. February 10, 2012) that came out on 10 February from the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.
Apparently, on the grounds of the public interest in competition in the medical device field, the CAFC refused a permanent injunction against the defendant, a competitor of the patentee/plaintiff. Having found infringement of the patent, the only relief awarded was an ongoing equitable royalty. There was apparently no finding of bad faith on the part of the patentee.
This Kat has nothing at present to add to the analysis by Dave Healey. From his UK perspective, he is quite surprised that the US courts are apparently accepting in principle that a public interest in competition can reduce the remedies available to that of a reasonable royalty.
Apparently, on the grounds of the public interest in competition in the medical device field, the CAFC refused a permanent injunction against the defendant, a competitor of the patentee/plaintiff. Having found infringement of the patent, the only relief awarded was an ongoing equitable royalty. There was apparently no finding of bad faith on the part of the patentee.
This Kat has nothing at present to add to the analysis by Dave Healey. From his UK perspective, he is quite surprised that the US courts are apparently accepting in principle that a public interest in competition can reduce the remedies available to that of a reasonable royalty.