DeAngelo argues that plaintiffs face no threat of future infringement, because it has
voluntarily ceased its infringing activities. However, “[w]hile cessation of unlawful conduct mayrender a request for injunctive relief moot, the [defendant must show that the reform is] irrefutableand total.”
See Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
593 F.Supp.2d 1088, 1109-10 (N.D.3in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
The determination of whether to “grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitablediscretion by the district court .”
, the Supreme Court cautioned against the application of set rules and assumptionsin the analysis of whether to grant an injunction.
at 1840. Nonetheless, “[c]ourts awarding permanent injunctions typically do so under circumstances where plaintiff practices its invention andis a direct market competitor.”
See TruePosition v. Andrew Corp.
, 568 F.Supp.2d 500, 531 (D.Del.2008);
see Smtih & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc.
, 2010 WL 2522428, at * 2 (E.D. Tex June 18,2010) (“The best case for obtaining a permanent injunction often occurs when the plaintiff anddefendant are competing in the same market. In that context, the harm in allowing the defendant tocontinue infringing is the greatest.”).In this case, plaintiffs face irreparable harm if DeAngelo is not enjoined from making andselling products that infringe the patents-in-suit. The parties are direct competitors in the market for marine exhaust products and, as a result, future infringing sales by DeAngelo would cause plaintiffsto lose sales and customers, thus reducing plaintiffs’ market share and improving DeAngelo’sgoodwill and reputation, to the detriment of plaintiffs.Monetary damages alone are inadequate to compensate plaintiffs for the irreparable harmcaused by DeAngelo’s infringement. While the jury awarded plaintiffs damages for pastinfringement, the threat of future infringement remains. As discussed above, the parties compete
Case 9:08-cv-81579-DTKH Document 260 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/30/2010 Page 3 of 6