The court may limit the scope of an injunction in order to satisfy equitable considerations such as balance of hardships and public interest. Options include:
imposing a sunset provision to allow an infringer time to implement a non-infringing alternative;
The district court provided for a twenty-month sunset provision from the date of the May 2007 jury verdict. See id. at 12, 18. This does not amount to an abuse of discretion, particularly in light of the district court's finding that "the time line from a `win' to actually bringing the product to the consumer is about 18 months," id. at 5, and in light of the fact that Qualcomm could have — and in fact may have — begun design-around efforts upon receipt of the complaint, which Broadcom filed more than two years prior to the jury verdict.
— Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F. 3d 683, 704 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
granting a limited compulsory licenses in order to provide time to appeal or alter their products;
Carlos Armando Amado ("Amado") appeals … [a] final decision of the U.S. District Court … which dissolved a previously-issued permanent injunction and awarded Amado $0.12 per infringing unit sold by Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") during a period of the stay of the permanent injunction.
— Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F. 3d 1353, 1355-56 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
granting exceptions to an injunction to limit damage to third parties; and
By carving out users who purchased or licensed infringing Word products before the injunction's effective date, the injunction's tailoring minimizes disruptions to the market and the public.
— i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F. 3d 831, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
limitations on the injunction so that it applies only to certain features of the accused products.
Apple asserts that there is no causal nexus requirement when the patentee is seeking, as in this case, a narrow injunction, limited to the infringing features.
— Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 809 F. 3d 633, 640 (Fed. Cir. 2015).