Ebay decision has not undermined pharma innovation-ability to obtain permanent injunction is mostly unaffected for life sciences
Stiefel 16 (Aaron, senior counsel and researcher for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, “10 years later- impact of eBay on patent injunctions in the life sciences, https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2016/06/2016_06_21_10_years_later_impact_of_ebay_13037?utm_source=mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_term=intellectual-property&utm_content=articleoriginal&utm_campaign=article)
The more things change, the more they stay the same. At least this is true for most life sciences cases in a post-eBay world. While many recent case law developments have tended to limit patentee rights and make enforcement more difficult (e.g., the rising § 101 and §112 definiteness bars and the availability of new post-grant procedures), eBay’s requirement that courts apply the traditional four-factor injunction standard for patent cases has not drastically affected the ability of life sciences companies to obtain injunctions after determinations that their patents were infringed and not invalid. Patentees do, however, have to make more of an effort now than pre-eBay to prove irreparable harm and the inadequacy of monetary damages. For life sciences companies where the value of market exclusivity is paramount, these first two factors should be relatively straight-forward to establish in most cases. However, they may be overcome by the public interest factor, which continues to be the most common barrier to an injunction for life sciences companies. And where market exclusivity is not of paramount value to the patentee (as demonstrated through licensing practices), or where the public interest would objectively be disserved by an injunction, declining to seek a permanent injunction may save valuable time and resources while maintaining credibility with the court and the public.