Nichia Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor, Ltd. (PDF) 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12183 Decided February 7, 2008 Judge Maxine M. Chesney Plaintiff was denied a permanent injunction because it could not show it has suffered irreparable harm or that it will likely suffer irreparable harm. Defendant apparently only made one infringing sale in the US Ã¢â?¬â?? 3 yrs ago and for $165. “[D]efendantsÃ¢â?¬â?¢ only remaining customers for the accused product were six companies, each located in Asia… and that earlier in the year they had notified their customers of their intent to cease production of the accused product.” Further, defendants state that the technology in the accused product is Ã¢â?¬Å?pretty much obsolete.Ã¢â?¬Â?
Because the purpose of an injunction is to prevent future violations, a plaintiff is not entitled to such remedy where the plaintiff fails to show there exists some cognizable danger of recurrent violation, something more than a mere possibility.
It sounds like the injunction was denied because there was no risk that defendant was going to infringe anymore.
In sum, it is undisputed that defendants no longer manufacture the accused product, that defendants currently have no potential customers for such product, that defendants currently have no potential customers for such product in the United States, and that, with the exception of one sale initiated by plaintiff almost three years ago and one extremely small additional sale that same month, defendants have never sold the accused product to a customer in the United States.
The final judgment was willful infringement of plaintiff’s patent. The damages: $250 and no injunction. Why did this lawsuit go all the way to trial?