The defendants argued that the injunction would cause irreparable harm because the lack of an acceptable noninfringing design may put them out of business. The court rejected this argument as speculative and noted that the defendants’ claims about the centrality of the claimed invention to its revenue stream undermines rather than supports the argument in favor of a stay.
Defendants also argued that the plaintiff, as a nonpracticing entity, would not be harmed if the injunction is stayed pending appeal. The court flatly rejected this argument, noting that defendants “take no account of the fundamental nature of the right at issue: the right to exclude.” The court went on to note that this period of exclusivity is particularly important given the inevitable expiration date: “[W]hether for Thomas Edison and his light bulb patents or AMI and its offtheshelf purchase, the exclusive rights under 35 U.S.C. 271 are the same; that period of exclusivity never comes back.”
Ultimately, the court denied the motion to stay and the motion to extend the sunset period.
Accessories Marketing, Inc. v. Tek Corp., 511cv00774 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2014).