The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction, but imposed a 15-month "sunset provision" to "allow [defendant] time to introduce a new, noninfringing . . . product prior to any injunction taking effect." "There is little reason to believe that additional [competition from the accused product that defendant] will be phasing out . . . under the auspices of a Court-imposed permanent injunction, will expand to such an extent as to impose substantial, irreparable harm to [plaintiffs]. . . . [However,] [i]f the Court were to immediately and entirely exclude [defendant's accused product] from the market, medical professionals who are currently using [the] device would be required to stop doing so. . . . [Defendants'] reputation would also be harmed to a degree disproportionate to the infringement found by the jury. What would appear to many to be an urgent, 'recall-like' decree from this Court is simply not warranted under the circumstances presented here. . . . Additionally, it must be noted that nearly every aspect of this case has presented what can only fairly be described as close calls. The jury's 'split' verdict, in the Court's view, reflects the close nature of this case."
B. Braun Melsungen AG, et. al. v. Terumo Medical Corporation, et. al., 1-09-cv-00347 (DED April 21, 2011, Order) (Stark, J.)