Canon v. GCC is a non-precedential opinion decided on January 25, 2008 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court granted plaintiff Canon a preliminary injunction. Defendant GCC appealed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction grant.
A patent owner seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “(1) a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the prospect of irreparable harm to the patent owner in the absence of the injunction; (3) that this harm would exceed harm to the alleged infringer when subject to the injunction; and (4) that granting the injunction is in the public interest.”
Both the medicines belong to the group of medications calledselective inhibitors of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)-specific phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5). prescription cialis o It is known as thyroidectomy. If you are in doctors reach then do talk to him about the disorder and he will definitely get amazed as to an canadian generic cialis exceptionally circumstance he never encountered up to now or a truly consideration never came upon him. A large fraction of universal 100mg viagra online male population has lost the quality of erections despite extreme sexual desires. Cures for Female Libido Loss: There is no shortage of options and men can pick and choose their own personal favorite viagra pill price deals for Kamagra online.
The Federal Circuit held that “Canon ha[d] established a substantial likelihood — albeit not a certainty — of success on its claim that Defendants have infringed Claim 58 of the [patent].”
The district court did not err in finding that the “irreparable harm balance” favored Canon. “To reach an irreparable harm balance, a trial court compares the irreparable harm that would be sustained by the movant if a preliminary injunction were erroneously denied with the irreparable harm that would be sustained by the non-movant if a preliminary injunction were granted in error.” The trial court found that competition from GCC would likely result “in substantial price erosion of Canon’s patented product as well as loss of Canon’s market share. Due to the difficulty (if not impossibility) of determining the damages resulting from price erosion and loss of market share, an award of money damages would not be sufficient.” Moreover, “Defendants’ business operations are geographically farflung, making the enforcement of a money judgment exceedingly difficult.” On the other hand, the district court found that “there is little, if any, harm that would be suffered by Defendants by virtue of an erroneous grant of a preliminary injunction that could not be fully compensated by a money damage award against Canon.”
Consideration of the public interest favored neither side. On one hand, “the public benefits from lower prices resulting from free market competition.” On the other, the public “has an interest in the enforcement of patents.”