Judge Posner Denies Injunction to Apple and Motorola Due to Failure of Proof as to Damages

Following the court's rulings in limine excluding the testimony of the parties' various damages experts and orders granting summary judgment as to the parties' claims for damages, the court also denied the parties' motions for injunctive relief. "The grant of an injunction is not an automatic or even a presumptive consequence of a finding of liability, either generally or in a patent case—in fact the Supreme Court has held that the standard for deciding whether to grant such relief in patent cases is the normal equity standard. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., supra, 547 U.S. at 391–92; see also Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2009). And that means, with immaterial exceptions, that the alternative of monetary relief must be inadequate. . . . [Here] neither party is entitled to an injunction. Neither has shown that damages would not be an adequate remedy. True, neither has presented sufficient evidence of damages to withstand summary judgment—but that is not because damages are impossible to calculate with reasonable certainty and are therefore an inadequate remedy; it’s because the parties have failed to present enough evidence to create a triable issue. They had an adequate legal remedy but failed to make a prima facie case of how much money, by way of such remedy, they are entitled to. That was a simple failure of proof."

Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., et. al., 1-11-cv-08540 (ILND June 22, 2012, Order) (Posner, C.J.).