Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.
659 F.3d 1142
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Bosch sued Pylon for infringement of multiple beam blade patents in the District of Delaware.
- The district court bifurcated damages and willfulness after a 2009 hearing, granting bifurcation.
- A jury found certain claims of the '905 and '434 Patents valid and infringed; others were found invalid or noninfringing.
- Bosch moved for a permanent injunction; the district court denied it, finding no irreparable harm.
- The district court emphasized absence of a two-supplier market and the non-core nature of Bosch's wiper blade business.
- Bosch appeals under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292, challenging the injunction denial as an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court abuse its discretion on irreparable harm? | Bosch argues irreparable harm shown by direct competition, price erosion, and lack of ability to pay. | Pylon argues irreparable harm not shown due to additional competitors and non-core business. | Yes; four-factor analysis supports irreparable harm. |
| Is presence of additional competitors a dispositive barrier to irreparable harm? | Bosch contends presence of other infringers does not negate irreparable harm. | Pylon contends multiple competitors undermines irreparable harm. | No; not automatically preclusive; context matters and damages may still be irreparable. |
| Does labeling the wiper blade business as non-core preclude irreparable harm? | Bosch asserts irreparable harm can arise even from non-core business harms. | Pylon argues non-core nature reduces harm and injunctive need. | No; irreparable harm can arise from non-core harms; core status is not dispositive. |
| Did the district court appropriately weigh the balance of hardships and other factors? | Bosch shows ongoing infringement and potential harm; injunction warranted. | Pylon contends injunction would be hardships-intensive for a smaller defendant. | Yes; balance favors Bosch based on ongoing infringement and potential irreparable harms. |
| Does the appeal lie under § 1292(a)(1) for an order denying a permanent injunction when explicitly denied? | Bosch argues jurisdiction exists for express denial of injunction. | Pylon argues Carson/Strings-Fellow requirements apply, or stay considerations. | Yes; jurisdiction exists under § 1292(a)(1) because the district court expressly denied an injunction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (irreparable harm need not be negated by multiple infringers; presence of others does not preclude irreparable harm)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (Supreme Court, 2006) (abrogated broad per se rules; emphasizes traditional equitable balancing)
- Cross Medical Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (appeals from injunctions fall under § 1292(a)(1); Carson requirements do not apply when injunction is expressly denied)
- Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. v. Cross Medical Prods., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional framing for injunction-related appeals)
- Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (remand to district court to apply eBay framework; district court should weigh factors first on remand)
- Canon, Inc. v. GCC Int’l Ltd., 263 Fed. Appx. 57 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (consideration of likelihood and collectability of monetary damages in irreparable harm analysis)
- O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (assessing adequacy of monetary damages in injunction analysis)
- Praxis (Praxair) v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (patent right to exclude supports irreparable harm considerations)