CH2O Inc v. Meras Engineering Inc, 2:13-cv-08418

CH2O sued Meras and Houweling’s for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,767,470; a jury found infringement of claims 1, 2, and 7 and awarded $12.5 million.
CH2O and Meras are direct competitors supplying chlorine dioxide services to hydroponic growers; CH2O claims lost sales, price erosion, and damaged goodwill.
CH2O alleges the patented method (using sodium molybdate as a catalyst to produce chlorine dioxide with water recirculation) drove customer demand and its market position.
Defendants argued infringement was trivial or incidental, that much of their production was non-infringing, and that monetary damages would suffice.
The court applied the eBay equitable-factor framework to CH2O’s motion for a permanent injunction and held a hearing.
The court granted the motion in part: finding irreparable harm, inadequacy of monetary damages, favorable balance of hardships and public interest, but limited the injunction’s scope to the infringing activities shown at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CH2O suffered irreparable harm warranting injunction	Lost market share, price erosion, damaged goodwill from defendants’ infringing use	Infringement was trivial and harms resulted from lawful non‑infringing production	Court: CH2O showed nexus between patented features and demand; irreparable harm satisfied
Whether monetary damages are adequate	Lost control of patented method; never licensed patent; damages won’t prevent future use	Much production is non‑infringing; defendants lack ability to pay future damages	Court: Monetary damages inadequate (ongoing use and defendants’ inability to pay)
Balance of hardships	Narrow injunction limiting only future infringement; otherwise CH2O will continue to suffer	Injunction would grant CH2O effective monopoly for trivial infringement and be inequitable	Court: Hardships favor CH2O; injunction not a broad monopoly and leaves room for non‑infringing alternatives
Public interest and scope of injunction	Protecting IP incentives and practiced invention serves public interest	Patent is narrow and offers no environmental benefit; public interest disfavors broad injunction	Court: Public interest favors protecting property rights; injunction granted but limited to activities found to infringe at trial

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (sets four‑factor equitable test for permanent patent injunctions)
i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (2010) (past harm to market share and goodwill is relevant to irreparable injury)
Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 544 F.3d 1341 (2008) (loss of market position evidences irreparable harm)
Douglas Dynamics LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 717 F.3d 1336 (2013) (exclusivity as fundamental to patent property rights)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 809 F.3d 647 (2015) (public interest usually favors protecting property rights in absence of countervailing factors)
N.L.R.B. v. Express Pub. Co., 312 U.S. 426 (1941) (courts may enjoin future acts of the same type as those found unlawful)