Chad Drown, Esq., Timothy E. Grimsrud, Esq., Timothy Sullivan, Esq., and Lauren J. Frank, Esq., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Global Traffic Technologies, LLC.
Jonathan D. Jay, Esq., and Terrance C. Newby, Esq., Leffert Jay & Polglaze, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of KM Enterprises, Inc., STC, Inc., and Rodney K. Morgan.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge.
On November 7, 2013, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Plaintiff Global Traffic Technologies, LLC's ("GTT") Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction [Docket No. 333] and Defendants Rodney K. Morgan, STC, Inc., and KM Enterprises, Inc.'s (collectively, the "Defendants") Motion to Deny Injunctive Relief [Docket No. 328]. For the reasons stated on the record and affirmed below, Plaintiff's motion for injunction is granted.
On September 20, 2013, a jury found that GTT proved by a greater weight of the evidence that Defendants infringed GTT's Patent No. 5, 539, 398 (the "'398 Patent"). The jury rejected Defendants' invalidity defenses concerning the '398 Patent and calculated damages in the amount of $5, 052, 118. Finally, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Defendants willfully infringed the '398 Patent.
GTT now moves for a permanent injunction against Defendants. Under the proposed injunction, Defendants would be prevented from continuing to violate the '398 Patent by manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, using, or importing the infringing Emtrac GPS System to new customers. The proposed injunction would also prevent Defendants from assisting current customers expand their current systems with additional purchases of infringing products. However, the injunction allows Defendants to continue to service current customers, that is, to manufacture, sell, offer for sale, use, or distribute software, hardware, and instructions for the purpose of programming or enabling the use of existing Emtrac GPS Systems.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, courts "may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by the patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable." Accordingly, the Supreme Court has required satisfaction of a four factor test before an injunction may be granted. 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 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, LLC ...