On January 17, Research-and-Motion and NTP simultaneously filed opening briefs arguing opposite sides of the injunction issue. For its part, RIM gives a litany of reasons why the CAFC’s August 2005 decision should not result in an injunction:
- A new trial is required on damages because the jury had improperly found that RIM infringed 7 of the 16 asserted claims.
- The willfulness award should be set aside based on the CAFC’s decision and the intervening decision in Knorr-Bremse.
- RIM’s products introduced since trial are “either non-infringing or contain many substantial non-infringing features.”
- An implied license exists permitting RIM to continue providing services to customers of the handheld devices for which damages are awarded.
- The “exceptional public interest in continued and uninterrupted availability of RIM’s BlackBerry system” and “the fact that NTP can be more than adequately compensated by royalty payments” indicate that a permanent injunction should not be issued.
According to RIM, all these factors should be considered in the backdrop of the fact that the PTO “will fully and finally reject all patent claims at issue in this case in a matter of weeks.”
On the other hand, NTP has argued that the scope and severity of RIM’s infringing conduct “is not affected by the CAFC’s modification of the total number of claims infringed.” As such, NTP requests its damages (increased because of RIM’s increased sales) and an injunction.
Reply briefs are due on February 1, 2006.