The CP solves broad innovation but protects public health.

IV. REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN MEDICAL PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES

A. The Public Interest in Medicine The public has always had a large interest in medicine.207 This heightened interest in medicine exists due to its role in diagnosing and treating illnesses, extending the term of life, and improving the overall health of the general population.208 The United States patent system helps encourage innovation in medical technologies that improve the health of the population by granting exclusive rights to patent holders for limited terms.209 President Lincoln once commented on the patent system, expressing that “the patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.” 210 While the patent system plays an important role in protecting inventors and encouraging innovation, there have been multiple times that the public interest in health has superseded this system.211 After the demise of the Federal Circuit’s “general rule” to automatically grant permanent injunctions in most infringement cases, courts have been given more flexibility to protect the public interest in health by denying permanent injunctions when medically-related patents are involved.212

B. Reasons Why Permanent Injunctions Should Be Denied in Most Medically Related Patent Infringement Cases After eBay, courts were required to apply the traditional four-factor test when deciding to grant injunctive relief.213 The fourth factor, the public interest, has sparingly been used in medically-related cases to deny injunctive relief.214 Because the public has such a great interest in medicine, courts should apply a rebuttable presumption, finding that the public interest weighs in favor of denying injunctive relief in all cases that involve medically-related patents. If a plaintiff cannot produce convincing evidence to rebut this presumption, courts should deny injunctive relief, even when the other three factors weigh in favor of granting a permanent injunction. This rebuttable presumption would not contravene eBay because Justice Kennedy’s concurrence suggests that certain patents might not be suited for injunctive relief.215 Furthermore, if injunctive relief was denied in these cases, the plaintiff would not be left without remedy but would be able to obtain remedies at law via monetary awards, reasonable royalties, or compulsory licenses.216 Overall, this rebuttable presumption would protect and promote the substantial public interest in the public health. 217