infringement. Id.; see also Windsurfing Int’l v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n.12 (Fed.
D. Public Interest
Except as to the injunction’s effective date, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that the narrow scope of the injunction and the public’s general
interest in upholding patent rights favor injunctive relief. See Broadcom, 543 F.3d at
704 (quoting Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The
district court’s conclusion properly recognized that the touchstone of the public interest
factor is whether an injunction, both in scope and effect, strikes a workable balance
between protecting the patentee’s rights and protecting the public from the injunction’s
adverse effects. Broadcom, 543 F.3d at 704. In particular, the injunction’s narrow
scope substantially mitigates the negative effects on the public, practically and
economically. By excluding users who purchased or licensed infringing Word products
before the injunction’s effective date, the injunction greatly minimizes adverse effects on
the public. Id. Here, the relevant “public” includes not only individual consumers, but
also companies that license infringing Word products and manufacturers that are part of
network carriers and manufacturers). By carving out users who purchased or licensed
infringing Word products before the injunction’s effective date, the injunction’s tailoring
minimizes disruptions to the market and the public.
E. Injunction’s Effective Date
On appeal, Microsoft challenges the date on which the injunction goes into effect.
We review whether this aspect of the district court’s order is supported by the record.