Squo solves patent enforcement—it is sufficiently innovative

2. Current Injunction Law Is Equipped to Maintain the Fight Against Climate Change

This Comment argues that the equitable discretion afforded to courts in injunction decisions, as bolstered by eBay, provides adequate assurance that patent infringement proceedings do not harm the public through a lack of access to green technology.218 Cases such as Siemens Gamesa, BASF, and the other above-discussed injunction decisions exemplify the highly practical, fact-specific analysis in which courts can engage when adjudicating an injunction request, especially within the public interest prong.219 Courts have extended this discretion to embrace sensitivity to public environmental concerns.220 The Siemens Gamesa decision is notable for its explicit invocation of climate science to inform its analysis and its subsequent tailored injunction.221 Because injunction cases have not often hinged on the public interest inquiry, the Siemens Gamesa decision will likely have outsized influence going forward when the public interest is threatened.222

The fight against climate change depends on a robust market of sustainable innovation.223 Efforts to weaken patent protections for green technologies risk disrupting the motivations crucial to future progress.224 Courts have continued to grant injunctions to a significant majority of requests following a finding of infringement, thereby largely maintaining patent exclusivity.225 Even still, many commentators view eBay itself as a destructive decision for patent protection.226 Further steps to undermine patent rights, especially those specifically targeted at green technology, would be counterproductive to the continued advancement of these key areas of innovation.227 This Comment asserts strong patent rights, enforced by a court’s equitable discretion post-eBay, will best serve this innovative ecosystem, and thus, the fight against climate change.228