Presuming harm
For a long time, federal courts presumed that misuse of someone's intellectual property — things like patents, copyrights, and trademarks — would cause the owner "irreparable harm". The bad acts, the courts believed, would ipso facto injure the IP owner in ways that mere money could not fix.
Change in the air
But
A June 25th ruling by the Supreme Court cleared the way for workers to bring claims under the Employee Retirement Income Secuirity Act of 1974 against ERISA plan fiduciaries who imprudently allow or require the employees to invest in their employers' stock. But the window of liability for imprudent fiduciaries might not last very long
Seven justices today rejected an attempt to make patents easier for judges and juries to find invalid. The Court held that Congress's granting patents a presumption of validity saves patents unless their foes prove a basis for invalidity with "clear and convincing" evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, No. 10-290 (U.S. June 9
You convince the trial judge that your side will likely win on the merits and that in the time between now and trial your client will suffer harm that money can't fix. The judge enjoins the other side — under Rule 65 — from doing the hurtful stuff pending trial. But the court of appeals vacates
Whether to treat a securities fraud case on a class basis often turns on whether the court may presume that class members relied on false statements or omissions by the defendants.
The most common form of presumption — the fraud on the market theory – won the Supreme Court's okay in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485