M.A.D.W. schreef:
Dit zijn de redenen waarom DirectTV geen injunction kreeg. En ook zij hadden een wilfull patentbreuk.
First case using Supreme Court four factor test for injuction/injuctionDENIED!!!!
First case using Supreme Court four factor test for injuction
Aug 01, 2006
Injunction Denied -- Compulsory License Granted
Finisar v. DirectTV Group (E.D. Tex. 2006).
A jury found willful infringement by DirectTV. However, in the post-trial hearing, the court denied Finisar's motion for injunctive relief and instead granted a compulsory license.
Reasoning from the transcript:
* Patentee has no irreparable harm because it never made or licensed the invention and DirectTV has money to pay damages. [The court found no presumption of irreparable harm.]
* Because there are only two major competitors in the "market" (DirectTV and EchoStar), an injunction against DirectTV could create a de facto monopoly in EchoStar's favor.
* A compulsory license will adequately compensate Finisar -- "especially since Finisar never had the will nor the means to implement the patent itself."
* Hardship to DirectTV would be enormous. Thousands of employees out of work . . . 15 million lose the ability to watch TV . . . ripple effect . . . "some would say this is a blessing.