Defendant's motion for a permanent injunction following a jury trial was denied. "While the [eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)] standard establishes that past harm is relevant to the irreparable harm analysis, an injunction is by definition a prospective remedy. In this case, the irreparable harm factor weighs against granting a permanent injunction because the 'irreparable' component of the injury that [defendant] alleges stems from [plaintiff's] past conduct, which allegedly 'shaped the market' and resulted in long-term customer loss. This harm would continue even if a permanent injunction were issued, and [defendant] makes no allegations of prospective lost customers or harms that are truly irreparable unless the court issues a permanent injunction. On the contrary, the court concludes that [defendant] would not benefit substantially from an injunction being issued at this stage, several years after [Plaintiff's] accused product entered the market."
LG Electronics USA Inc., et. al. v. Whirlpool Corporation, 1-08-cv-00234 (DED July 1, 2011, Order) (Sleet, J.)