CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent
AEON law logo on grey background

Injunctive Relief

Injunction allowed
When competitive wipers
Cause patentee harm

A new Federal Circuit decision has resolved some of the uncertainty about the availability of an injunction to a patent plaintiff in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange.  Prior to eBay, a patent plaintiff who proved the validity and infringement of its patents would be awarded an injunction against infringers as a matter of course.

In its October 12 decision in Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., the Federal Circuit held that a patent holder may obtain an injunction by showing that an infringing product competed with the plaintiff’s patented product and that the plaintiff was losing business due to the infringer’s activities.

The case involved beam-type wiper blades, which are considered superior to conventional “bracketed” wiper blades.  Bosch develops and sells beam blades and holds several relevant patents.

In August 2008, Bosch sued Pylon in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of three of these patents.  After a jury trial, Bosch obtained a verdict that two these patents were valid and infringed by Pylon.  Bosch sought an injunction against sales of the infringing Pylon wiper blades, but the district judge denied this, even though Bosch presented unrebutted evidence that it had lost customers and potential customers to Pylon.

The district judge found that Bosch had failed to show “irreparable harm,” because Bosch failed to provide a clear overview of the relevant market and a breakdown of the relative market shares, because of the existence of additional competitors, and because wipers were a “non-core” business for Bosch.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit confirmed that “eBay jettisoned the presumption of irreparable harm as it applies to determining the appropriateness of injunctive relief.”  However, the Court of Appeals also found that the district court had “erred in relying exclusively on the presence of additional competitors and on the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business.”

The Court of Appeals remanded the case with directions to enter an appropriate injunction.

Related Articles

Just Because It’s on the Internet Doesn’t Mean It’s “Publicly Accessible”

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) because the petitioner failed to ...
Read More

Trademark Denied for “ChatGPT”

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has denied OpenAI’s applications to trademark “ChatGPT” and “GPT.” The Final Office Action states, “Registration is refused because the applied-for mark ...
Read More

Federal Circuit: “Improving User Experience” Isn’t Patentable

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that patent claims for methods and systems for improving how search results are displayed to users ...
Read More

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.



Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices



Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games



Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products



Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design