Cardenas-Gutierrez v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a categorical rule of granting an injunction to a prevailing patent holder abrogates a district court's discretion in granting equitable relief and runs afoul of traditional principles of equity
• holding that injunctive relief for intellectual-property infringement must still be adjudged on the four-factor test
• holding that courts may grant injunctive relief “con such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright”
• holding that grant of permanent injunction requires (1) irreparable injury, (2) inadequacy of other remedies, (3) that injunction be “warranted” given balance of hardships, and (4) that public interest would not be disserved
• holding that “the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised with traditional principles of equity”
• holding that before a court may grant injunctive relief, the plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, “that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for [its] injury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).