Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction was granted. "[T]he Court has already concluded there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find there are no substantial, non-infringing uses. . . . The negative effect on [plaintiff's] market share and other aspects of its business as a result of [defendant's] infringing acts is more than adequate to support a finding of irreparable harm."
Clearvalue, Inc. et al v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc. et al., 6-06-cv-00197 (TXED August 12, 2010, Memorandum Opinion & Order) (Davis, J.)
Plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction following a jury verdict was granted. "[T]wo weeks after the jury returned its verdict in favor of [plaintiff], [defendant] went into the Australian equivalent of bankruptcy. Thus, it is highly probable that [defendant] would never be able to pay monetary damages to [plaintiff]. Second, [plaintiff's] syringes compete directly with [defendant's] syringes as exemplified by [one company] being a customer of both [parties]. Third, [plaintiff] has refused to license its technology to its direct competitors and would not license to [defendant]."
Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Occupational & Medical Innovations, Ltd., 6-08-cv-00120 (TXED August 11, 2010, Memorandum Opinion) (Davis, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment