Courtesy of Hal Wegner and his readers, another report of a patent injuction considered post-eBay:

KEG Techs., Inc. v. Laimer, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37726 (N.D.Ga. June 6, 2006)(Story, J.)

"Were it operating under the traditional rule of the Federal Circuit that infringement typically mandates an injunction in all but the most extraordinary case, see Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1246-47 (Fed. Cir. 1989), this Court would be inclined to enjoin Defendants from the further manufacture or sale of the infringing nozzles, or devices no more than colorably different from those nozzles. See Int'l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 383 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2004). But, on the day of the Rule 55(b)(2) hearing in this case, the Supreme Court [in eBay] rejected that ‘general rule,’ and instead insisted that the lower courts grant or deny injunctive relief only if the plaintiff demonstrates:

" ‘(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.’

"eBay, Inc., 126 S. Ct. at 1839.
…
"Because the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the day of the evidentiary hearing, the Court is not inclined to deny Plaintiffs injunctive relief on their patent claim based on the absence of [ ] proof. Rather, it finds that taking additional evidence and argument respecting the availability of injunctive relief, or, for that matter, more equitable alternatives (e.g., a compulsory license), would be appropriate. …"

Ugh.