In granting plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction, the court rejected defendant's argument that "[plaintiff] has always held a majority share in the market [at issue], even after the introduction of the [defendant's product], thus suggesting that the continued presence of [defendant's product] would cause no harm. That argument is unpersuasive, however, because the continued presence of the [product] would undeniably continue to take up market share that would otherwise belong to [plaintiff] and would continue to deprive [plaintiff] of profits." "[Plaintiff's] injury stems, in fact, from the loss of its 'right to exclude competitors from infringing the patent.' Money damages cannot compensate for [plaintiff's] inability to assert that right."
Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. et al., 1-05-cv-12572
(MAD June 1, 2009, Memorandum & Order) (Gorton, J.).