
Top stories

Marketing & MediaWarner Bros. was “nice to have” but not at any price, says Netflix
Karabo Ledwaba 13 hours




Logistics & TransportMaersk reroutes sailings around Africa amid Red Sea constraints
Louise Rasmussen 5 hours

More news

















Traditionally, requests for permanent injunctions were treated similarly in both patent and trademark infringement cases, generally being granted almost automatically any time a patent or trademark owner proved infringement.
Recent cases, however, have called this parity into question. As reported in the January 2008 KLIP Alert, the Supreme Court removed the presumption of a near-automatic grant of injunction in patent cases, clarifying that trial judges should instead apply the traditional permanent injunction four-factor balancing test in considering whether to enjoin the infringing activity or to, in essence, force a compulsory license. eBay Inc. v. MercExch., L.L.C., 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006). Prior to eBay, instead of looking to the specific facts of the case and balancing the equitable factors, courts simply presumed irreparable harm anytime patent or trademark infringement was shown (or in the case of a request for a preliminary injunction, when a likelihood of success on the merits was shown).