Even after winning a patent infringement case, a plaintiff still may not get an injunction prohibiting ongoing infringement by the defendant. In ActiveVideo v. Verizon, Case No. 2011-1538 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit further explained why that is, illustrated how various factors should be weighed to determine whether to issue an injunction, and offered guidance concerning how to calculate an appropriate royalty in the event an injunction does not issue.
The jury found that defendant Verizon’s Fios service infringed plaintiff ActiveVideo’s method patents pertaining to video-on-demand technology, but the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred by imposing a permanent injunction prohibiting future use. The Federal Circuit vacated the injunction, and remanded the case for the district court to determine the royalty Verizon should pay. The case illustrates the real world impact of the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) that injunctions should not automatically issue in patent infringement cases.
