XML containing custom XML; (4) providing support or assistance that describes how to
use Word to open an XML file containing custom XML; and (5) testing, demonstrating,
or marketing Word’s ability to open an XML file containing custom XML.
The scope of this injunction is narrow, however. It applies only to users who
purchase or license Word before the injunction’s effective date may continue using
Word’s custom XML editor, and receiving technical support.
We review the decision to grant an injunction, as well as the scope of that
injunction, for abuse of discretion. Joy Techs., Inc. v. Flakt, Inc., 6 F.3d 770, 772 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). Factual findings made in support of the injunction are reviewed for clear
error; the district court’s conclusion as to each eBay factor is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1327-31 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Our review is guided by statute and well-established principles of equity. See 35 U.S.C.
§ 283.6 The plaintiff has the burden of showing that (1) it has suffered an irreparable
injury; (2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3)
considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in
equity is warranted; and (4) the public interest would not be “disserved” by a permanent
injunction. eBay, 547 U.S. at 391.
While we conclude that the injunction’s effective date should have been five
months, rather than sixty days, from the date of its August 11, 2009 order, we affirm the
6 The Patent Act provides that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. § 283.