Reasoning of the Court

The reasoning of the court took a lot of deliberation on the District Court and the Supreme Court. The major concern was not only on the permanent injunction of the patent invention but also on whether the courts can manage to take every bit of the Patent Act into consideration and make sure not to skip over the procedures when it comes to the process of proving any infringement damages. That includes the four-factor test which can rule whether to grant injunctive relief in any patent cases. The Supreme Court also wanted to stress that “The traditional practice of issuing injunctions against patent infringers does not seem to rest on the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes.” Ante, at 1 (ROBERTS, C. J.concurring). Meaning that one cannot use the personal injunction against the one you are accusing to protect the patent from use against the owner’s wishes. The Supreme Court concurred with the District Court stating that the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder should be taken into consideration. This is due to the fact that the industry has developed to use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but instead for obtaining licensing fees making injunctions more important. With all these observations, the courts made their decision.