Permanent and preliminary injunctions


We provide economic analysis related to injunction requests to halt the production or sale of an infringing product or technology. Our professionals have served as consulting and testifying experts in permanent and preliminary injunction proceedings on issues related to the standards set forth in eBay v. MercExchange such as irreparable harm, adequacy of monetary damages, balance of the burdens, and public interest.

  • In Teva v. Amgen, supported testifying expert related to the injunction sought by Amgen to prevent Teva from introducing its infringing drug, Neutroval, in the United States. Submitted an expert report that provided economic opinions concerning the application of the four factors identified in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in eBay v. MercExchange.  A court-approved settlement enjoined Teva from introducing Neutroval into the United States until November 2013—only one month before the patents at issue will expire.
  • Provided written report, deposition, and courtroom testimony on behalf of Amgen in Amgen v. F. Hoffman-La Roche to advise the court considering whether to grant a permanent injunction against F. Hoffman-La Roche’s sales and marketing of a product that infringes Amgen’s patents. Testimony focused on the implications of recently introduced Medicare reimbursement policies on competitive dynamics among drug manufacturers and the impact of the potential entry of F. Hoffman-La Roche’s product on Amgen, healthcare providers, Medicare, and third-party payors.
  • In Applied Medical v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, on behalf of Applied Medical, investigated economic issues associated with the Court’s consideration of injunctive relief concerning allegations of false advertising in markets for laparoscopic medical devices. Analyses focused on the impact of the challenged conduct on surgeon preferences and hospital procurements. Supported testifying expert’s report, deposition testimony, and preparation for trial.