Judge Hillman, sitting by designation, recently considered plaintiff Evonik Degussa GmbH’s motion for permanent injunction filed following a jury trial after which the jury found in favor of Evonik and awarded damages for past infringement. Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia, Inc., No. 09-636-NLH-JS (Aug. 9, 2017). Judge Hillman found that, on balance, the four eBay factors supported an injunction, based on facts including:
- Defendant Materia and Evonik “are direct and primary competitors” for “olefin metathesis catalysts” in the “pharmceutical, oleochemical, fine chemical, and polymer industries.” Id. at 3, 6.
- Evonik has never licensed the patented technology to its competitors. Id. at 3, 6.
- “Forcing Evonik to continue competing with its own patented technology [for the remaining two years of the life of the patent] would impose a weighty hardship under the circumstances of this case, and would be simply inequitable.” Id. at 8.
- The public interest would not be disserved. Id. at 10.
The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the scope of the injunction and to submit a proposed permanent injunction to the Court. Id. at 10-11.
Evonik Degussa GmbH v. Materia, Inc., No. 09-636-NLH-JS (Aug. 9, 2017)
Delaware IP Law Blog 