Opinion ID: 208578
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Permanent Injunction Motions

Text: Both parties assert the district court erred in denying their respective motions for a permanent injunction. We need not consider Ecolab's assertion of error because we hold today that the claims found to be infringed by FMC are invalid as a matter of law; thus, any error committed by the district court regarding its consideration of Ecolab's motion for injunctive relief is harmless. [4] Regarding FMC's assertion of error, we vacate the district court's denial of its motion for a permanent injunction and remand for the district court to perform the required analysis. To obtain injunctive relief, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). We review the district court's decision to grant or deny injunctive relief for an abuse of discretion. Id. We may find an abuse of discretion on a showing that the court made a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors or exercised its discretion based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings. Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1379 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent the court's decision is based upon an issue of law, we review that issue de novo. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2006). Here, the district court failed to consider any of the eBay factors and failed to make any factual findings regarding those factors. That is an abuse of discretion. See eBay, 547 U.S. at 391-93, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (instructing district courts to consider four equitable principles when assessing the propriety of injunctive relief in patent disputes); Nutrition 21 v. United States, 930 F.2d 867, 869 (Fed.Cir.1991) (Sufficient factual findings on the material issues are necessary to allow this court to have a basis for meaningful review.). In eBay, the Supreme Court held that four traditional and well-established equitable principles apply when a patentee seeks equitable relief for infringement. 547 U.S. at 391-93, 126 S.Ct. 1837. In that case, the Supreme Court vacated the injunction because [n]either the District Court nor the Court of Appeals below fairly applied these traditional equitable principles in deciding respondent's motion for a permanent injunction. Id. at 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837. We must do likewise and vacate the district court's order. Because the district court decided FMC's motion for injunctive relief without stating its reasons for denial, we must conclude that it failed to apply any of the traditional equitable principles discussed in eBay. Thus, the district court abused its discretion. Although the district court did not consider the eBay factors, FMC nonetheless asserts that it made the required showing and that it is entitled to injunctive relief. However, we decline to analyze the eBay factors in the first instance. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 811 (Fed.Cir.2007) (If we were to weigh the evidence ourselves to reach a conclusion on injunctive relief, we would effectively be exercising our own discretion as if we were the first-line court of equity. That role belongs exclusively to the district court. Our task is solely to review the district court's decisions for an abuse of discretion.); see also eBay, 547 U.S. at 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (vacating an injunction and remanding so that the District Court may apply that framework [i.e. the four equitable factors described in eBay ] in the first instance). Accordingly, we vacate the district court's denial of FMC's motion for a permanent injunction, and we remand for the district court to perform the analysis required under eBay.