In another post-eBay permanent injunction opinion, the Court denied to enter a permanent injunction where the plaintiffs failed to set forth specific reasons why damages in the form of monetary compensation would not suffice and where they did not provide the Court with any details as to what injury it would incur as a result of not receiving a permanent injunction against the defendant. , C.A. No. 03-1158 (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2007) (Robinson, J.). The plaintiffs received a jury verdict in their favor finding all asserted patent claims infringed and not invalid. They later sought a permanent injunction to enjoin the use of all infringing products by defendants’ customers and a mandatory recall of all infringing products to which it still had title and a voluntary recall on those products where titled had passed. Id. at 4. The products made by the plaintiffs and defendants were in “direct and head-to-head competition” and are the only two of their type on the market. Id. at 3-4. The Court acknowledged that the “quantum of evidence required [to demonstrate the need for a permanent injunction] is relatively unclear,” however, the Court still found that the plaintiffs had not met their burden under eBay to be entitled to such a broad scope of relief. The plaintiffs “generally” argued that without an injunction they would lose market share, profits and goodwill but they did not provide or even describe any “specific sales or market data to assist the court” and they did not identify what market share, revenues or customers they have lost to the defendant. Id. at 6. Furthermore, both parties cited to evidence that the products are not critical to either one’s “overall corporate success.” Id. at 7. The Court therefore denied the injunction but stated that the plaintiffs may renew their motion for injunctive relief after appellate review of the jury verdict. Id.