## Facts

- Robert Bosch LLC owned patents covering “beam-type” windshield wiper blade technology and sold the products to OEMs and aftermarket retailers.
- Pylon Manufacturing Corp. sold competing beam-blade wipers and competed directly with Bosch for major retail accounts, including Wal‑Mart.
- Bosch sued Pylon in the District of Delaware for infringement of four patents; after pretrial rulings, the case proceeded to a jury on certain claims.
- A jury found Pylon infringed valid Bosch patent claims; damages and willfulness were bifurcated and not tried at the liability stage.
- Bosch moved for a permanent injunction, asserting irreparable harm from lost market share, loss of customer relationships and accounts, and injuries difficult to quantify; Bosch also offered evidence raising doubt about Pylon’s ability to satisfy a substantial monetary judgment.
- The district court denied a permanent injunction for failure to prove irreparable harm.
- Bosch took an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1) limited to the denial of permanent injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. After *eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.*, does any presumption of irreparable harm apply once infringement and validity are established?
2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in applying the *eBay* four-factor test and denying Bosch a permanent injunction?

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit held that *eBay* eliminated any presumption of irreparable harm in patent cases.
- The court reversed the denial of a permanent injunction as an abuse of discretion.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter an appropriate permanent injunction.
- A dissent would have affirmed the district court’s equitable determination and criticized the majority for insufficient deference.

## Legal Principles

- Permanent injunctions in patent cases are governed by the *eBay* four-factor test: (1) irreparable injury, (2) inadequacy of legal remedies, (3) balance of hardships, and (4) public interest.
- Infringement and validity findings do not create a presumption of irreparable harm; the patentee must prove entitlement to equitable relief.
- Competitive harms such as loss of market share, lost customers, and injury to business relationships may constitute irreparable injury and support a finding that damages are inadequate, especially where the harms are difficult to quantify.
- The existence of other competitors and the relative size of the patented product line within a patentee’s broader business do not, by themselves, defeat a showing of irreparable harm where the parties compete directly and the record shows threatened or actual customer loss.
- Evidence that a defendant may be unable to satisfy a money judgment can support the conclusion that legal remedies are inadequate.
- In balancing hardships, an infringer’s claimed hardship from being enjoined from infringing carries reduced equitable weight compared to the patentee’s right to exclude.
- In ordinary commercial disputes without exceptional countervailing concerns, the public interest generally favors enforcing valid patent rights when the *eBay* factors are met.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit clarified that *eBay* abolished any presumption of irreparable harm in patent injunction analysis, yet held that Bosch proved irreparable, hard-to-quantify competitive injury and inadequacy of damages, requiring entry of a permanent injunction against Pylon’s adjudicated infringement.


Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011)