EDVA Judge Denies Permanent Injunction After Jury Finds Infringement
As we posted here, on February 25 a jury awarded $19 million in damages to CompX International in its patent infringement lawsuit against Humanscale Corp. Humanscale Corp. v. CompX Inter., Inc., Case No. 3:09CV86 (E.D. Va.). In a Memorandum Opinion dated April 29, Judge Spencer has denied CompX’s post-trial motion for a permanent injunction enjoining the sale of the accused products.
CompX claimed that the parties were direct competitors and that it had lost market share and customer goodwill as a result of Humanscale’s infringement. In response, Judge Spencer held:
- CompX’s claim of direct competition was not enough. Rather, citing the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., the Court held that a patentee must point to some record evidence of direct competition. If any claim of direct competition sufficed, it “would essentially create a presumption in favor of irreparable harm, contrary to the Supreme Court’s directive in eBay.”
- The direct competition used to justify a finding of irreparable harm typically involves a two-supplier market, which CompX had not shown.
- Even if CompX could show some evidence of loss of market share and sales, those facts would not necessarily establish irreparable harm.
- That the patents at issue will expire in six weeks further undermined any claim of irreparable harm.
- The balance of hardships tipped in favor of Humanscale because of the short life left on the patents and because the injunction would prevent the sale of the accused products even though only one component of the products was found to be infringing.
CompX also moved for entry of judgment on the jury’s verdict and for an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Court took those motions under advisement because Humanscale’s post-trial motions, particularly its laches motion, had not yet been decided. Humanscale’s motions were filed April 16 and will not be fully briefed until late May.
