Acme Safe Company owns a patent on a particular type of electronic locking mecha

Question

Acme Safe Company owns a patent on a particular type of electronic locking mechanism for safes. Acme discovered that Notso Safe Company had begun using a mechanism that is identical to the patented mechanism, and obtained a finding from the courts that Notso had infringed on Acme's patent. Which of the following is most correct?

Acme cannot win unless it can prove that Notso's design was actually stolen from Acme. What counts is whether it was wrongfully taken, because two companies could design the same mechanism independently of each other.

Acme can obtain an injunction to prevent Notso from manufacturing any more safes that use Acme's patented design, but only if it proves that without an injunction, there would be irreparable damage to Acme, that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, that a comparison of hardships on the two parties demonstrates that an injunction would be appropriate, OR that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.See the discussion in Case 11.1 on pages 383-384 in your text.

Acme can obtain an injunction to prevent Notso from manufacturing any more safes that use Acme's patented design, but only if it proves that without an injunction, there would be irreparable damage to Acme, that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, that a comparison of hardships on the two parties demonstrates that an injunction would be appropriate, AND that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Acme will win the infringement issue, but will not be able to obtain an injunction against Notso because that would abrogate Notso's property rights.

Acme cannot win unless it can prove that Notso's design was actually stolen from Acme. What counts is whether it was wrongfully taken, because two companies could design the same mechanism independently of each other.

Acme can obtain an injunction to prevent Notso from manufacturing any more safes that use Acme's patented design, but only if it proves that without an injunction, there would be irreparable damage to Acme, that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, that a comparison of hardships on the two parties demonstrates that an injunction would be appropriate, OR that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.See the discussion in Case 11.1 on pages 383-384 in your text.

Acme can obtain an injunction to prevent Notso from manufacturing any more safes that use Acme's patented design, but only if it proves that without an injunction, there would be irreparable damage to Acme, that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, that a comparison of hardships on the two parties demonstrates that an injunction would be appropriate, AND that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Acme will win the infringement issue, but will not be able to obtain an injunction against Notso because that would abrogate Notso's property rights.

Explanation / Answer

C) Acme can obtain an injunction to prevent Notso from manufacturing any more safes that use Acme's patented design, but only if it proves that without an injunction, there would be irreparable damage to Acme, that money damages would not be an adequate remedy, that a comparison of hardships on the two parties demonstrates that an injunction would be appropriate,and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

Explanation:

According to the Intellectual Property Law permanent injection can given by conducting four factor test.

1)Injury should be irreparable damage

2)Monetary remedy is considered to be a adequate remedy

3)Comparing the hardship between two parties

4)public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

All these four factor should be examined,

____________________________________________________________________

You can ask me, option B also same as optionC, then why i have selected the option C

If you deeply watched in both option you can find variation

Option b: OR that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction stated that one can choose or not public interest   factor, totally 3 factors OR is used . In this option 3 factors were given so this option is incorrect

but option C:AND that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction having four factor . In this option four factors were given which is need to conduct a test. This option is correct

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.