*390Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies the four-factor test historically employed by courts of equity. Petitioners eBay Inc. and Half.com, Inc., argue that this traditional test applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. We agree and, accordingly, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

Petitioner eBay operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, operates a similar Web site. Respondent MercExchange, L. L. C., holds a number of patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. See U. S. Patent No. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found *391that MercExchange’s patent was valid, that eBay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate.1

Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange’s motion for permanent injunctive relief. 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339 (2005). We granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule. 546 U. S. 1029 (2005).

II

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 311-313 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 542 (1987). The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. See, e. g., Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S., at 320.

These familiar principles apply with equal force to disputes arising under the Patent Act. As this Court has long recognized, “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Ibid.; see also Amoco, supra, at 542. Nothing in the Patent Act indi*392cates that Congress intended such a departure. To the contrary, the Patent Act expressly provides that injunctions “may” issue “in accordance with the principles of equity.” 35 U. S. C. § 283.2

To be sure, the Patent Act also declares that “patents shall have the attributes of personal property,” §261, including “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention,” § 154(a)(1). According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. 401 F. 3d, at 1338. But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right. Indeed, the Patent Act itself indicates that patents shall have the attributes of personal property “[sjubject to the provisions of this title,” 35 U. S. C. §261, including, presumably, the provision that injunctive relief “may” issue only “in accordance with the principles of equity,” § 283.

This approach is consistent with our treatment of injunctions under the Copyright Act. Like a patent owner, a copyright holder possesses “the right to exclude others from using his property.” Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127 (1932); see also id., at 127-128 (“A copyright, like a patent, is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestowed by the genius and meditations and skill of individuals and the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Like the Patent Act, the Copyright Act provides that courts “may” grant injunctive relief “on such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” 17 U. S. C. § 502(a). And as in our decision today, this Court has consistently rejected invitations to replace traditional equitable considerations with a rule that an injunction auto*393matically follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed. See, e. g., New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U. S. 483, 505 (2001) (citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U. S. 569, 578, n. 10 (1994)); Dun v. Lumbermen’s Credit Assn., 209 U. S. 20, 23-24 (1908).

Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals below fairly applied these traditional equitable principles in deciding respondent’s motion for a permanent injunction. Although the District Court recited the traditional four-factor test, 275 F. Supp. 2d, at 711, it appeared to adopt certain expansive principles suggesting that injunctive relief could not issue in a broad swath of cases. Most notably, it concluded that a “plaintiff’s willingness to license its patents” and “its lack of commercial activity in practicing the patents” would be sufficient to establish that the patent holder would not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction did not issue. Id., at 712. But traditional equitable principles do not permit such broad classifications. For example, some patent holders, such as university researchers or self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to license their patents, rather than undertake efforts to secure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themselves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we see no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so. To the extent that the District Court adopted such a categorical rule, then, its analysis cannot be squared with the principles of equity adopted by Congress. The court’s categorical rule is also in tension with Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U. S. 405, 422-430 (1908), which rejected the contention that a eourt of equity has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to a patent holder who has unreasonably declined to use the patent.

In reversing the District Court, the Court of Appeals departed in the opposite direction from the four-factor test. The court articulated a “general rule,” unique to patent disputes, “that a permanent injunction will issue once infringe*394ment and validity have been adjudged.” 401 F. 3d, at 1338. The court further indicated that injunctions should be denied only in the “unusual” case, under “exceptional circumstances” and “‘in rare instances ... to protect the public interest.’” Id., at 1338-1339. Just as the District Court erred in its categorical denial of injunctive relief, the Court of Appeals erred in its categorical grant of such relief. Cf. Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865 (CA Fed. 1984) (recognizing the “considerable discretion” district courts have “in determining whether the facts of a situation require it to issue an injunction”).

Because we conclude that neither court below correctly applied the traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, so that the District Court may apply that framework in the first instance. In doing so, we take no position on whether permanent injunctive relief should or should not issue in this particular case, or indeed in any number of other disputes arising under the Patent Act. We hold only that the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Chief Justice Roberts,

with whom

Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring.

I agree with the Court’s holding that “the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases *395governed by such standards,” ante, at 394, and I join the opinion of the Court. That opinion rightly rests on the proposition that “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320 (1982); see ante, at 391.

From at least the early 19th century, courts have granted injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement in the vast majority of patent cases. This “long tradition of equity practice” is not surprising, given the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes— a difficulty that often implicates the first two factors of the traditional four-factor test. This historical practice, as the Court holds, does not entitle a patentee to a permanent injunction or justify a general rule that such injunctions should issue. The Federal Circuit itself so recognized in Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865-867 (1984). At the same time, there is a difference between exercising equitable discretion pursuant to the established four-factor test and writing on an entirely clean slate. “Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. 132, 139 (2005). When it comes to discerning and applying those standards, in this area as others, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.).

Justice Kennedy,

with whom

Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, concurring.

The Court is correct, in my view, to hold that courts should apply the well-established, four-factor test — without resort to categorical rules — in deciding whether to grant injunctive relief in patent cases. The Chief Justice is also correct *396that history may be instructive in applying this test. Ante, at 395 (concurring opinion). The traditional practice of issuing injunctions against patent infringers, however, does not seem to rest on “the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes.” Ibid. (Roberts, C. J., concurring). Both the terms of the Patent Act and the traditional view of injunctive relief accept that the existence of a right to exclude does not dictate the remedy for a violation of that right. Ante, at 391-392 (opinion of the Court). To the extent earlier cases establish a pattern of granting an injunction against patent infringers almost as a matter of course, this pattern simply illustrates the result of the four-factor test in the contexts then prevalent. The lesson of the historical practice, therefore, is most helpful and instructive when the circumstances of a case bear substantial parallels to litigation the courts have confronted before.

In cases now arising trial courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present considerations quite unlike earlier cases. An industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees. See FTC, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, ch. 3, pp. 38-39 (Oct. 2003), available at http://www.ftc.gov/ os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf (as visited May 11, 2006, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). For these firms, an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy licenses to practice the patent. See ibid. When the patented invention is but a small component of the product the companies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement *397and an injunction may not serve the public interest. In addition injunctive relief may have different consequences for the burgeoning number of patents over business methods, which were not of much economic and legal significance in earlier times. The potential vagueness and suspect validity of some of these patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor test.

The equitable discretion over injunctions, granted by the Patent Act, is well suited to allow courts to adapt to the rapid technological and legal developments in the patent system. For these reasons it should be recognized that district courts must determine whether past practice fits the circumstances of the cases before them. With these observations, I join the opinion of the Court.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON.

*1145O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, denying Bosch’s post-trial motion for entry of a permanent injunction. Because the district court abused its discretion when it denied a permanent injunction on this record, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an appropriate injunction.

BACKGROUND

This is a patent infringement case involving windshield wiper technology, specifically beam-type wiper blades (“beam blades”). Beam blades are a relatively new technology that offers several advantages over conventional, or “bracketed,” wiper blades, including more evenly distributed pressure across the length of the blade and better performance in inclement weather. Part of Bosch’s business involves developing wiper blades, and Bosch owns patents covering various aspects of beam blade technology. In addition to its research and development efforts, Bosch sells blades to both original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket retailers. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., LLC (“Pylon”) also sells beam blades and has competed with Bosch for business from retailers such as Wal-Mart.

In August 2008, Bosch sued Pylon in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,292,974 (“the '974 Patent”), 6,675,434 (“the '434 Patent”), 6,944,905 (“the '905 Patent”), and 6,978,512 (“the '512 Patent”).1 On June 9, 2009, during a hearing regarding Bosch’s alleged failure to produce certain financial data, the court informed the parties of its preference for bifurcating the issue of damages and suggested that this procedural mechanism may address the parties’ discovery dispute. In response, Pylon moved to bifurcate the issues of damages and willfulness, a request that Bosch opposed. The district court granted Pylon’s motion, noting its “determin[ation] that bifurcation is appropriate, if not necessary, in all but exceptional patent cases.” Memorandum Order, Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., No. 08-542, 2009 WL 2742750 (D.Del. Aug. 26, 2009), ECF No. 123.

The parties subsequently moved for summary judgment with respect to the validity and infringement of various claims. On March 30, 2010, the district court granted Pylon’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the '512 Patent, but denied its motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '974 and '512 Patents. The court also granted Bosch’s motions for summary judgment of: (1) infringement of claims 1 and 8 of the '974 Patent; and (2) no inequitable conduct and no invalidity for derivation as to the '905 and '434 Patents. The remaining issues were tried to a jury, which found: (1) claim 13 of both the '905 and '434 Patents valid and infringed; (2) claims 1 and 5 of the '434 Patent infringed, but invalid for obviousness; and (3) claims 1 and 8 of the '974 Patent invalid based on obviousness and derivation.

In light of the jury’s determination that Pylon infringed valid claims of the '905 and '434 Patents, Bosch moved for entry of a permanent injunction. In a memorandum opinion dated November 3, 2010, the court denied the motion on grounds that Bosch failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm. At the outset of its analysis, the district court noted an apparent difficulty faced by courts “struggling to *1146balance the absence of a presumption of irreparable harm with a patentee’s right to exclude,” and observed that other courts had “frequently focused upon the nature of the competition between plaintiff and defendant in the relevant market in the context of evaluating irreparable harm and the adequacy of money damages.” Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 748 F.Supp.2d 383, 407 (D.Del.2010). The court also discerned a tendency among district courts to award permanent injunctions: (1) “under circumstances in which the plaintiff practices its invention and is a direct market competitor”; and (2) where the plaintiffs “patented technology is at the core of its business....” Id. at 407-08.

With these factors in mind, the court proceeded to assess the nature of the competition between Bosch and Pylon. In doing so, the court identified deficiencies it perceived in Bosch’s presentation of the competitive landscape, including a failure to “provide[ ] a clear, summary-level overview of the relevant market” and “a breakdown illuminating [the parties’] relative market percentages.” Id. at 408. The court also focused on the fact that “[t]his is not a clear case of a two-supplier market wherein a sale to Pylon necessarily represents the loss of a sale to Bosch” and “wiper blades alone are not at the core of [Bosch’s] business.” Id. at 408. Based on: (1) its conclusion that Bosch “fail[ed] to define a relevant market”; (2) the “existence of additional competitors”; and (3) the “non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business in relation to its business as a whole,” the court concluded that Bosch failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm. Id. Finding the absence of irreparable harm fatal to Bosch’s motion, the court denied the request for an injunction without addressing the remaining equitable factors of the permanent injunction inquiry.

Bosch timely appealed the district court’s interlocutory order, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292.

Jurisdiction

Whether this court has jurisdiction over an appeal taken from a district court judgment is a question of “Federal Circuit law, not that of the regional circuit from which the case arose.” Pause Tech. LLC v. TiVo, Inc., 401 F.3d 1290, 1292 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Woodard v. Sage Prods., Inc., 818 F.2d 841, 844 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (en banc)). Section 1292(a)(1) provides that “the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals” from “[interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions. ...” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Section 1292(c)(1), moreover, confers upon this court exclusive jurisdiction over such appeals if we would otherwise have jurisdiction under § 1295. Thus, on its face, the district court’s order denying Bosch’s request for a permanent injunction in a patent case- falls within the scope of § 1292(a)(1), (c)(1). See Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“Medtronic appeals from an order permanently enjoining Medtronic from infringing the '555 patent. On its face, the order falls within the scope of § 1292(a)(1), (c)(1).”).

Pylon admits that § 1292(a)(1) provides a sound basis for jurisdiction, but contends that jurisdiction under that section “has not been established.” Appellee’s Br. 1. According to Pylon, Bosch was required to show that the order will have “a serious, perhaps irreparable consequence” and that the order can be “effectually challenged” only “by immediate appeal.” Id. at 20 (quoting Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 379, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) and Carson v. *1147 American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)). Pylon argues that Bosch failed to make such a showing and that we should, accordingly, “decline to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal at this time and dismiss with leave to refile after final judgment is entered below.” Id. at 23.

Bosch counters that the additional hurdles cited by Pylon apply only in cases involving orders that do not expressly deny an injunction, but have the effect of denying injunctive relief. Because its appeal is from an order “explicitly” denying a request for an injunction, Bosch contends that it need not make any additional showing for jurisdiction to attach under § 1292(a)(1). We agree.

This court has made clear that a party appealing an order that expressly grants or denies a permanent injunction need not also demonstrate that the order will have “a serious, perhaps irreparable consequence” and that “the order can be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal.” See Cross Med. Prods., 424 F.3d at 1300. When confronted with this issue in Cross Medical, we explained that these “Carson requirements” apply only where there is no order specifically granting or denying injunctive relief, but the appellant argues that the appealed order has the effect of granting or denying such relief. Id. We also observed that the “Supreme Court [had] confirmed our reading of Carson as applying only to orders that have ‘the practical effect of granting or denying injunctions.’ ” Id. at 1301 (quoting Gulf-stream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 287-288, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988)) (“Section 1292(a)(1) will, of course, continue to provide appellate jurisdiction over orders that grant or deny injunctions and orders that have the practical effect of granting or denying injunctions and have serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is, thus, well-established that, “if the district court’s order expressly grants [or denies] an injunction, the order is appealable under § 1292(a)(1), without regard to whether the appellant is able to demonstrate serious or irreparable consequences.” Id. (quoting 19 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 203.10[2][a], at 14 (3d ed.2005)).

In this case, the district court entered an order expressly denying Bosch’s motion for entry of a permanent injunction. The Carson requirements are, thus, inapplicable, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).2

Standard of Review

This court reviews the denial of a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion. See i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 861 (Fed.Cir.2010). A district court abuses its discretion when it acts “based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings” or commits “a clear error of judgment.” Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2009). A clear error of judgment occurs when the “record contains no basis on *1148which the district court rationally could have made its decision or if the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable.” Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 828 (Fed.Cir.1989) (quoting PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Bissel, J., concurring)). “To the extent the court’s decision is based upon an issue of law, we review that issue de novo.” Ecolab, 569 F.3d at 1352 (quoting Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2006)).

Discussion

Consistent with traditional equitable principles, a patentee seeking a permanent injunction must make a four-part showing:

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and the defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, this court followed the general rule that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged, absent a sound reason to deny such relief. See, e.g., Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1247 (Fed.Cir.1989) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1281 (Fed.Cir.1988)). In addition, at least in the context of preliminary injunctive relief, we applied an express presumption of irreparable harm upon finding that a plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of a patent infringement claim. See Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1983) (“We hold that where validity and continuing infringement have been clearly established, as in this case, immediate irreparable harm is presumed.” (footnotes omitted)). Based on our case law, district courts also have applied a presumption of irreparable harm following judgment of infringement and validity to support the issuance of permanent injunctions. See, e.g., Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 526, 528-29 (D.Del.2003) (entering a permanent injunction after noting that irreparable harm is presumed in patent cases); Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 106 F.Supp.2d 696, 701 (D.N.J.2000) (same).3

In eBay, the Supreme Court made clear that “broad classifications” and “categorical rule[s]” have no place in this inquiry. 547 U.S. at 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837. Instead, courts are to exercise their discretion in accordance with traditional principles of equity. Id. at 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837. The Supreme Court, however, did not expressly address the presumption of irreparable harm, and our subsequent cases have not definitively clarified whether that presumption remains intact. See Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 702 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“It remains an open question whether there remains a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm following eBay.” (internal quotation marks and cita*1149tion omitted)).4 Our statements on this topic have led one district court judge to conclude that “the presumption of irreparable harm is at best on life support.” Red Bend, Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 2011 WL 1288503, at *18 (D.Mass. Mar.31, 2011) (citations omitted). We take this opportunity to put the question to rest and confirm that eBay jettisoned the presumption of irreparable harm as it applies to determining the appropriateness of injunctive relief. In so holding, we join at least two of our sister circuits that have reached the same conclusion as it relates to a similar presumption in copyright infringement matters. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc, 653 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir.2011) (“[W]e conclude that our longstanding rule that a showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning of the Court’s decision in eBay and has therefore been effectively overruled.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 76-78 (2d Cir.2010) (finding that eBay abrogated the presumption of irreparable harm in copyright cases).

Although eBay abolishes our general rule that an injunction normally will issue when a patent is found to have been valid and infringed, it does not swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. In other words, even though a successful patent infringement plaintiff can no longer rely on presumptions or other short-cuts to support a request for a permanent injunction, it does not follow that courts should entirely ignore the fundamental nature of patents as property rights granting the owner the right to exclude. Indeed, this right has its roots in the Constitution, as the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution itself refers to inventors’ “exclusive Right to their respective ... Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (emphasis added). Although the Supreme Court disapproved of this court’s absolute reliance on the patentee’s right to exclude as a basis for our prior rule favoring injunctions, that does not mean that the nature of patent rights has no place in the appropriate equitable analysis. See eBay, 547 U.S. at 392, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (“According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right.”). While the patentee’s right to exclude alone cannot justify an injunction, it should not be ignored either. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed.Cir.2008) (finding in a post-eBay decision that, “[i]n view of that right [to exclude], infringement may cause a patentee irreparable harm not remediable by a reasonable royalty”).

The abolition of categorical rules and the district court’s inherent discretion to fashion equitable relief, moreover, also do not mandate that district courts must act on a clean slate. “Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.” eBay, 547 U.S. at 395, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (Roberts, J., concurring) (quoting Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005)). In this area, as others, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic” when “it comes to discerning and applying *1150those standards.” Id. (quoting New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.)). This wisdom is particularly apt in traditional cases, such as this, where the patentee and adjudged infringer both practice the patented technology. See id. at 396-97, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (contrasting the relevant considerations in traditional patent infringement actions with certain cases arising now “in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees,” “[wjhen the patented invention is but a small component of the product,” and those involving “the burgeoning number of patents over business methods” (citation omitted)).

Over the past quarter-century, this court has encountered many cases involving a practicing patentee seeking to permanently enjoin a competitor upon an adjudication of infringement. In deciding these cases, we have developed certain legal standards that inform the four-factor inquiry and, in particular, the question of irreparable harm. While none of these standards alone may justify a general rule or an effectively irrebuttable presumption that an injunction should issue, a proper application of the standards to the facts of this case compels the conclusion that Bosch is entitled to the injunction it seeks. It is in ignoring these standards, and supplanting them with its own, that the district court abused its discretion.

We address each component of the four-factor test in turn.

I.

Bosch argues that the district court committed legal error by establishing categorical rules in its irreparable injury analysis. Specifically, Bosch contends that the district court adopted per se rules that “the existence of additional competitors” and “the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business in relation to its business as a whole” each independently preclude a finding of irreparable harm. Appellant’s Br. 26. Bosch further argues that, on this record, no court acting within its discretion could find an absence of irreparable harm. In this regard, Bosch points to evidence of: (1) loss in market share and access to customers; (2) Pylon’s inability to satisfy a judgment; and (3) direct competition between it and Pylon in “each and every distribution channel in [the relevant] market.” Id. at 26. According to Bosch, “decades of jurisprudence confirm that a patentee in [these] circumstances has suffered irreparable harm.” Id. at 33.

In response, Pylon argues that the district court never concluded that “there had to be a two-supplier market” or that “the wiper blade business had to be at the core of Bosch’s business in order for an injunction to be warranted.” Appellee’s Br. 27 (emphases in original). Instead, Pylon contends, the district court applied the “proper legal standard to the evidence presented and concluded, as a factual matter, that the evidence presented was inadequate to establish irreparable harm.” Id. at 28.

While we agree that the district court did not establish categorical rules, we nevertheless conclude that the district court committed legal error by the weight given to the factors cited, and made a clear error in judgment in its analysis of the irreparable harm factor. Specifically, while facts relating to the nature of the competition between the parties undoubtedly are relevant to the irreparable harm inquiry, the court erred in relying exclusively on the presence of additional competitors and on the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business. In addition, the court committed a clear error of judgment when it *1151concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is particularly true in light of Bosch’s evidence of: (1) the parties’ direct competition; (2) loss in market share and access to potential customers resulting from Pylon’s introduction of infringing beam blades; and (3) Pylon’s lack of financial wherewithal to satisfy a judgment. Given these facts, there is “no basis on which the district court rationally could have” concluded that Bosch failed to show irreparable harm. See Datascope, 879 F.2d at 828. We first address the court’s legal errors and then turn to the clear error of judgment.

A.

The court’s first legal error lies in its conclusion that the presence of additional competitors, without more, cuts against a finding of irreparable harm. It is well-established that the “fact that other infringers may be in the marketplace does not negate irreparable harm.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2005). As we explained in Pfizer, a patentee need not sue all infringers at once. Id. “Picking off one infringer at a time is not inconsistent with being irreparably harmed.” Id. Were we to conclude otherwise, we would effectively establish a presumption against irreparable harm whenever the market contains a plurality of players. Under such circumstances, the first infringer sued could always point to the existence of additional competitors. And, perversely, if that infringer were to succeed in defeating an injunction, subsequent adjudged infringers could point to the market presence of the first infringer when opposing a request for an injunction. Consequently, without additional facts showing that the presence of additional competitors renders the infringer’s harm reparable, the absence of a two-supplier market does not weigh against a finding of irreparable harm.

This principle, moreover, is not incompatible with the cases cited by the district court, in which courts found irreparable harm based, in part, on the absence of additional competitors. While the existence of a two-player market may well serve as a substantial ground for granting an injunction — e.g., because it creates an inference that an infringing sale amounts to a lost sale for the patentee — the converse is not automatically true, especially where, as here, it is undisputed that the patentee has sought to enforce its rights against other infringers in the market. The record reveals that Bosch has diligently pursued infringers since the time it first learned of Pylon’s infringing beam blades. Once it became aware of the infringement, Bosch immediately notified Pylon’s supplier requesting that it cease production of infringing blades, to which it agreed. Later, in October 2007, Bosch sued Jamak Fabrication-Tex Ltd. in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of its beam blade patents. See Robert Bosch LLC v. Jamak Fabrication-Tex Ltd., No. 07-cv-676 (D.Del.).

During the pendency of its suit against Jamak, Bosch learned that Pylon had started selling a new infringing product. Accordingly, in August 2008, three months after resolving its suit against Jamak, Bosch filed this action against Pylon. Bosch subsequently sued an additional competitor, Old World Industries, Inc., in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Robert Bosch LLC v. Old World Indus., No. 10-cv-1437 (N.D.Ill.). For these reasons, the court erred in concluding that the absence of a two-player market effectively prohibits a finding of irreparable harm in this case.

*1152B.

The court also erred in relying on the “non-core” nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business in relation to its business as a whole. As other courts have concluded, the fact that an infringer’s harm affects only a portion of a patentee’s business says nothing about whether that harm can be rectified. See, e.g., Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. v. Cobalt Pharma. Inc., No. 07-cv-4539, 2010 WL 4687839, at *12, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119432, at *36-37 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2010) (“Cobalt points to Roche’s size and profitability, and the small impact the likely harms would have on Roche’s overall profitability. That says nothing about whether such harms are irreparable.”). Injuries that affect a “non-core” aspect of a patentee’s business are equally capable of being irreparable as ones that affect more significant operations.

Under the district court’s approach, for example, a large industrial corporation such as Bosch would find it easier to obtain an injunction if it subdivided its operations into child companies, with each focusing on a particular product line. Under such circumstances, Pylon’s infringement would go to the core of the business of “Bosch Beam Blades LLC,” which would increase the likelihood of irreparable harm. No one could seriously contend, however, that the irreparability of any particular injury should turn on incidental details such as a patentee’s corporate structure. An injury is either of the irreparable sort, or it is not. Consequently, the district court erred in attributing weight to the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business. • See Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2008) (Lourie, J., concurring) (“[A] patent provides a right to exclude infringing competitors, regardless of the proportion that the infringing goods bear to a patentee’s total business.”).

It is true that some courts have referenced the fact that the patented product is at the core of a party’s business when explaining their bases for granting an injunction. TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 568 F.Supp.2d 500, 531 (D.Del.2008) (granting a permanent injunction after finding that “[p]laintiffs are also frequently successful when their patented technology is at the core of its business.... ”). The trial court’s error in relying on these cases again arises from its conclusion that, if a fact supports the granting of an injunction, its absence likely compels denial of one. That is not the law, however.

C.

In addition to these legal errors, the district court committed a clear error in judgment when it concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The record here contains undisputed evidence of direct competition in each of the market segments identified by the parties. Bosch also introduced unrebutted evidence of loss of market share and access to potential customers, as well as Pylon’s inability to satisfy a judgment. The district court, however, did not address any of this evidence, but, instead, focused on: (1) the absence of a two-player market; (2) the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business; and (3) Bosch’s alleged failure to define a relevant market. In view of the entirety of the record, we are left with the firm conviction that there is no basis on which the district court rationally could have concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. We begin with an overview of the nature of competition between the parties before turning to the parties’ arguments regarding harms arising from Pylon’s competition with Bosch and Pylon’s apparent inability to satisfy a judgment.

*1153Although the parties dispute the finer details of the nature and extent of their competition, we agree with Bosch that the undisputed facts show that it competes with Pylon in all of the market segments identified by the parties. Neither Bosch nor Pylon sells directly to consumers. Instead, both offer their blades to intermediaries, who then sell the same to consumers. Before the district court, Bosch identified three channels of distribution in the relevant market: (1) mass merchandisers, such as Wal-Mart; (2) automotive specialty retailers; and (3) original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). Pylon did not dispute the existence of these distribution channels, nor did it identify the existence of additional channels within the relevant market. Rather, it disputed the extent of competition in each of these three markets. Specifically, Pylon argued, as it does now, that: (1) Bosch sells original wiping systems to OEMs for installation on new vehicles, while Pylon does not; (2) Bosch has a great concentration of customers in automotive specialty retailers, while Pylon lacks “a significant beam blade presence” in this market; and (3) “Bosch does not sell any beam blades to mass merchandisers.” Joint Appendix (“JA”) 880. Thus, while the parties disputed the extent of competition within each distribution channel, there was no dispute regarding the contours of the relevant market. While Pylon now asserts that it does not agree “that these channels comprise the relevant market,” Appellee’s Br. 34, it still fails to identify any additional distribution channels, and we reject its belated attempt to create a dispute as to this issue.

With respect to the mass-merchandiser channel, it is undisputed that both parties have competed for Wal-Mart’s business, which alone represents a substantial portion of not only the mass-merchandiser channel, but also the aftermarket as a whole. Both Bosch and Pylon approached Wal-Mart in 2006 in an attempt to secure its beam blade business, and Wal-Mart initially agreed to distribute Bosch’s ICON beam blades beginning in April 2007. Bosch, however, failed to make a timely initial delivery and, when it requested an extension, Wal-Mart refused, choosing to sell Pylon’s infringing product instead. Since losing the account, Bosch has made numerous efforts to regain Wal-Mart’s business and has even offered a new, cheaper blade in an attempt to compete with Pylon’s lower prices. Thus, while it is true that Bosch has not succeeded in selling its beam blades in the mass-merchandiser channel, the evidence shows that it competes with Pylon for business with the largest participant in the aftermarket.

The record, likewise, shows direct competition in the aftermarket specialty store segment. Both parties have sold beam blades to AutoZone, and, although Pylon has had limited success in securing business from other specialty stores, it has competed against Bosch for business from at least five of AutoZone’s competitors.

With respect to OEMs, Bosch sells its blades to most of the major car manufacturers, including BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Hyundai, Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo. Pylon admits that it has sold beam type wiper blades to at least one OEM, and has attempted sell beam blades to at least two additional manufacturers. The undisputed evidence, thus, demonstrates that the parties directly compete for customers in each of the relevant distribution channels.

Bosch argues that the harm caused by this competition is irreparable because it has suffered irreversible price erosion, loss of market share, loss of customers, and loss of access to potential customers. It also contends that Pylon’s inability to sat*1154isfy a judgment renders its injury irreparable. As Bosch notes, the district court did not address any of these factors when concluding that an injunction should not issue.

In response, Pylon contends that, while “Bosch has preliminarily established that Pylon sells allegedly infringing beam blades, [it] has not established that Pylon’s sales have had any definable impact on Bosch’s sales of its own beam blades.” Appellee’s Br. 37. According to Pylon, Bosch failed to prove that it was Pylon’s competition, rather than that of other competitors, which caused it to suffer lost market share and price erosion. Pylon further argues that Bosch’s evidence of Pylon’s inability to pay is unsupported and speculative. We disagree.

While it is true that at least some of Bosch’s loss of market share is attributable to other competitors, it is undisputed that it was Pylon that secured the WalMart account, which alone accounts for a substantial portion of the entire market. Pylon argues that Bosch presumes “that Wal-Mart would turn to Bosch if Pylon were enjoined.” Appellee’s Br. 39. Bosch, however, makes no such presumption. Rather, Bosch relies on the fact that it previously secured the Wal-Mart account as circumstantial evidence that it would reclaim Wal-Mart’s business were Pylon enjoined. While the party seeking an injunction bears the burden of showing lost market share, this showing need not be made with direct evidence. Here, Bosch made a prima facie showing of lost market share, and Pylon proffered no evidence to rebut that showing.

Pylon, likewise, failed to rebut the testimony of Bosch’s Director of Product Management, Martin Kashnowski, regarding its loss of access to potential customers. See JA 954 (“[N]ot securing an account with Wal-Mart has made it much more difficult for Bosch to secure accounts with other mass-merchandisers, including Sears, Target and K-Mart. If Wal-Mart was carrying Bosch’s beam blades, then its competitors would want to sell Bosch’s beam blades as well to maintain a competitive position.”). With respect to evidence of price erosion, although Bosch could have developed the effects of Pylon’s conduct from that of other competitors more clearly, Mr. Kashnowski’s testimony on this issue also stands unrebutted. Consequently, Pylon’s arguments with respect to the sufficiency of Bosch’s evidence of lost market share, the loss of access to potential customers, and irreversible price erosion are not well-taken.5

As additional evidence of irreparable harm, Bosch introduced evidence showing that the financial condition of both Pylon and its corporate parent raised questions about Pylon’s ability to satisfy a judgment. Specifically, Bosch submitted: (1) a Risk Management Report indicating that Pylon posed a “[m]oderate risk of severe financial stress, such a bankruptcy, over the next 12 months” and fell within the 49th percentile nationally in the category of “Financial Stress,” JA 677; and (2) a public filing showing that Qualitor Inc., which holds 100% of Pylon’s stock, obtained a five million dollar loan at a rate of 8.46%, JA827. In response, Pylon did not dispute *1155the accuracy of these submissions, nor did it submit evidence demonstrating its ability to pay a damages award, either of past or future damages. Instead, Pylon responded with attorney speculation and argued that, if, “as Bosch alleges, Pylon sells so many beam blades, then there is little reason to suspect that Pylon will not have sufficient resources to pay a royalty to Bosch.” JA 893.

While the burden of proving irreparable harm was of course Bosch’s, Pylon’s failure to submit rebuttal evidence regarding its ability to satisfy an award of money damages is troublesome given the procedural history of this case. Because the district court granted Pylon’s motion to bifurcate damages, Bosch had no opportunity to obtain discovery relating to Pylon’s financial condition, or that of its corporate parent before the court considered its request for injunctive relief. Consequently, facts relevant to Pylon’s ability to satisfy a judgment were uniquely within its control. While Bosch’s evidence of Pylon’s inability to pay is not overwhelming — gleaned as it had to be from public records, in light of Pylon’s failure to introduce any rebuttal evidence or to even argue below or to this court that Bosch’s characterization of its financial status is inaccurate, and the unique procedural history of this case, we conclude that this factor favors a finding of irreparable harm.6

In view of the foregoing evidence, the record contains no basis on which the district court rationally could have concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that a remedy other than injunction is sufficient to address its harm. Consequently, the court committed a clear error of judgment in analyzing this factor.

II.

Turning to the remaining equitable factors, we conclude that, on balance, they also favor entry of a permanent injunction.

With respect to the adequacy of money damages, Bosch argues that it will continue to suffer irreparable harm due to lost market share, lost business opportunities, and price erosion unless Pylon is permanently enjoined. According to Bosch, money damages alone cannot fully compensate Bosch for these harms. We agree. There is no reason to believe that Pylon will stop infringing, or that the irreparable harms resulting from its infringement will otherwise cease, absent an injunction. Cf. Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. J. Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 1557 (Fed.Cir. 1994) (recognizing that “future infringement ... may have market effects never fully compensable in money”). More importantly, the questionable financial condition of both Pylon and its parent company reinforces the inadequacy of a remedy at law. A district court should assess whether a damage remedy is a meaningful one in light of the financial condition of the infringer before the alternative of money damages can be deemed adequate. While *1156competitive harms theoretically can be offset by monetary payments in certain circumstances, the likely availability of those monetary payments helps define the circumstances in which this is so. See, e.g., Canon, Inc. v. GCC Int’l Ltd., 263 Fed. Appx. 57, 62 (Fed.Cir.2008) (considering the improbability that the patentee could collect a money judgment as weighing in favor of an injunction); 02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., No. 204-cv-32, 2007 WL 869576, at *2 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 21, 2007), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir.2008) (finding that a plaintiff demonstrated the inadequacy of monetary damages because “all three defendants are foreign corporations and that there is little assurance that it could collect monetary damages”).

Here, the only evidence of record is that Pylon likely will be faced with a substantial damages award for its past infringement and may be unable to pay even that. In the face of such evidence, the district court’s failure to consider the extent to which a forward-looking monetary award is a viable or meaningful alternative to an injunction was error.7

We also conclude that the third factor, the balance of hardships, favors Bosch. Pylon argues that “Bosch is an international conglomerate with a diverse product base,” whereas “Pylon is a small, domestic corporation that focuses on the manufacture and sale of wiper blades,” such that the parties’ respective size and business models demonstrate that an injunction would burden Pylon more than the absence of an injunction would harm Bosch. Appellee’s Br. 58. We are not persuaded. A party cannot escape an injunction simply because it is smaller than the patentee or because its primary product is an infringing one. See Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n. 12 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“One who elects to build a business on a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.”). On the other hand, requiring Bosch to compete against its own patented invention, with the resultant harms described above, places a substantial hardship on Bosch. This factor, therefore, favors entry of an injunction in this case.

As to the public interest, we find that this factor is neutral. Bosch argues that Pylon’s inferior product “may potentially” compromise the public’s safety, Appellant’s Br. 43, but there is no support in the record for that assertion. Although Bosch also cites its right to exclude and Pylon relies on its right to compete generally, neither party offers specific arguments as to why, in this case, the public interest would be served or disserved by an injunction. Although this final factor does not favor either party, the remaining considerations lead to only one reasonable conclusion: that Bosch has shown that it is entitled to a permanent injunction.

Because the undisputed evidence conclusively shows that permanent injunctive relief is warranted in this case, we do *1157not believe that remand of this matter is appropriate. We agree with Bosch that, on the record as it stands, any alternative result on remand necessarily would be an abuse of discretion. Remand is particularly inappropriate here because it would only delay relief to which Bosch currently is entitled. Pylon has been competing against Bosch with a product that a jury has concluded infringes Bosch’s valid patents, and it has done so for seventeen months since the jury’s verdict and for nearly one year since the district court denied Bosch’s motion for a permanent injunction. It also has done so despite a record which contains compelling evidence supporting injunctive relief in Bosch’s favor. Further delay, which would amount to a stay of an injunction without a bond, would be inequitable.

We agree, as the dissent urges, that normally a district court should balance these equitable considerations in the first instance, but the facts of this case compel a different result. Unlike the cases on which the dissent relies, including eBay itself, where the district courts either could not have or did not apply the standard announced in eBay, the parties and the district court in this case were well aware of the eBay standard when developing and applying the record. Again, to the extent that bifurcation of the damages portion of the trial inhibited development of the record as it relates to injunctive relief, that was the result of Pylon’s doing. Remanding the action for additional hearings prior to entry of injunctive relief would punish the patentee for the district court’s decision, at Pylon’s urging, to bifurcate the trial and for the district court’s erroneous application of the law to the evidence before it. We cannot endorse that result.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, and because we find that Pylon’s remaining arguments are without merit, we reverse the district court’s denial of Bosch’s motion for entry of a permanent injunction and remand for entry of an appropriate injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Costs

Costs are awarded to Bosch.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge,

dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that the district court erred in its application of the eBay factors, and I therefore agree that we should not affirm the district court’s order denying an injunction. However, I disagree with the majority’s decision that the record compels the issuance of an injunction and I therefore dissent with respect to that aspect of this court’s judgment.

Whether Bosch is entitled to injunctive relief is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires a careful balancing of competing equitable concerns, none of which is dis-positive. The resolution of competing factual issues, such as the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the evidence that Pylon’s infringement has and will continue to have adverse effects on Bosch, is for the district court, which has tried the infringement portion of this case to verdict and is familiar with the record. I would therefore not direct the entry of an injunction, but would follow the ordinary course of remanding for the district court to decide whether an injunction should issue based on a proper application of the four-part test for granting permanent injunctive relief. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (remanding “so that the District Court may apply that framework in the first instance”); Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1351-52 (Fed.Cir. *11582009) (“Although the district court did not consider the eBay factors, FMC nonetheless asserts that it made the required showing and that it is entitled to injunctive relief. However, we decline to analyze the eBay factors in the first instance.”); Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 811 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“If we were to weigh the evidence ourselves to reach a conclusion on injunctive relief, we would effectively be exercising our own discretion as if we were the first-line court of equity. That role belongs exclusively to the district court. Our task is solely to review the district court’s decisions for an abuse of discretion.”).

The majority concludes that on this record any decision by the district court to deny an injunction to Bosch would be an abuse of discretion. I disagree. In my view, there are enough open questions of fact bearing on the propriety of injunctive relief that we should not bypass the district court’s consideration of those factual issues on remand.

First, there is an open question whether, and to what extent, Pylon and Bosch compete in the marketplace. Evidence before the district court showed that Pylon is not the only competing manufacturer-distributor of beam wiper blades in the market. The majority points out that Bosch has sued several other manufacturer-distributors in addition to Pylon for patent infringement. With the exception of one case that has settled, however, the record does not reflect the outcome of those suits and thus it cannot be assumed that the other manufacturers actually infringe Bosch’s patent rights. In addition, the evidence is unclear as to whether Pylon’s presence in the beam blade market was, or continues to be, the reason that Bosch has not succeeded in its efforts to market its product to Wal-Mart, the largest aftermarket retailer of automotive parts. Thus, the proposition on which Bosch bases much of its argument — that Pylon’s actions are inflicting irreparable harm by causing it to lose sales — is at least open to question and requires further factual development. The majority is correct that it is not enough for the district court simply to conclude that the beam blade market is not a two-competitor market and to deny injunctive relief on that ground. But to the extent the number of competitors and other characteristics of the market affect the impact of Pylon’s sales on Bosch, those issues are important to Bosch’s right to injunctive relief; those intensely factual issues should be given further consideration by the district court.

As the majority points out, Bosch contends that, in addition to the loss of market share, it has suffered irreparable harm in the form of price erosion, loss of customers, and loss of access to potential customers, issues on which the district court made no explicit findings. The majority concludes that Bosch made a prima facie showing on each of those issues and that because Pylon did not rebut that showing, those issues can be conclusively resolved against Pylon. I disagree with that approach to the resolution of those factual issues. Bosch’s evidence on those issues was far from compelling; it is certainly incumbent upon the district court to consider that evidence, and it may be that the district court will find it persuasive. But that evidence was not so clear-cut that those issues can be resolved based on a shifting of the burden of proof. The evidence presents factual issues for the district court to resolve, and we should direct that court to resolve those issues rather than reaching out to decide those issues ourselves without the aid of the pertinent factual analysis by the district court.

Finally, there is a live issue as to the effect of the size and diversity of the two *1159parties: Bosch is large, and its wiper blade sales are only a small part of its business, while Pylon is small and wiper blades account for all of its sales. The district court regarded those facts as cutting against the issuance of an injunction on the ground that the economic impact of the lost sales would not result in irreparable harm to Bosch. The majority is correct that harm may be comparatively small but still irreparable — if, for example, Pylon is financially unable to compensate Bosch for its losses from Pylon’s ongoing infringement. But the respective size of the two parties affects another factor bearing on whether the injunction should be granted: the balance of hardships. As to that issue, the majority simply says that a party cannot escape an injunction just because it is small, and that requiring Bosch “to compete against its own patented invention” is a hardship in itself. While that may be true so far as it goes, the respective impact of an injunction on the parties is an important equitable consideration, and the impact of the injunction on each party can be significantly affected by their respective size and the nature of their business. That is not to say that the balance of hardships will necessarily favor Pylon, but only that the considerations to which Pylon points are legitimate factors bearing on the balance of hardships. It is the district court, not this court, that should consider those factors and weigh them in the overall equitable balance. To that extent, I respectfully dissent.

OPINION

IKUTA, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we once again consider a request by Perfect 10, Inc. for a preliminary injunction against Google, Inc. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Perfect 10 II), 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.2007). Because Perfect 10 has not demonstrated that it would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction, we affirm the district court’s denial of that relief.

I

This appeal is the latest installment in a legal saga of several years’ duration. That history is recounted elsewhere, see Perfect 10 II, 508 F.3d 1146, so we focus here on only those facts material to the questions before us now. Perfect 10 creates (and copyrights) photographic images of nude models for commercial distribution. For several years, it featured them in a now-*978defunct magazine, “PERFECT 10”; more recently, it began offering them for viewing on a password-protected, paid-subscription website, “perfectlO.com.” Perfect 10’s subscription website generates revenue from subscribers who pay a monthly fee to view the copyrighted images in a “members’ area,” which members access through a unique username/password combination. Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc. (Perfect 10 I), 416 F.Supp.2d 828, 832 & n. 3 (C.D.Cal.2006). Perfect 10 has generated virtually all of its revenue from these copyrighted images. Id. at 832.

Google operates numerous web-based services. Chief among them is its search engine, which uses an automated software program, known as a web crawler, to obtain copies of publicly available webpages and images for use in its search index. Google’s servers store the text of a web page in its cache, Perfect 10 II, 508 F.3d at 1156 & n. 3. In addition to its search engine, Google offers a service called Blogger, which hosts blogs created by users on Google’s server. Blogger account holders may upload images from the web onto Google’s server in order to post them on their blogs, or may use a hyperlink to images hosted on other servers.

In order to obtain the protections of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Google has developed a copyright-infringement notification policy for each of these Internet services. Under the DMCA, a provider of online services (such as Google) must, among other things, designate an agent to receive a notification of claimed infringement (often referred to as a “takedown notice”) in order to get certain safe harbor protections. Under Google’s notification policies, the take-down notice must include, among other things, the URL for the infringing material. Google forwards the takedown notices it receives to the website “chillingeffects.org,” a nonprofit, educational project run jointly by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and various law schools, which posts such notices on the Internet. As a result, even if Google removes Perfect 10’s images from its search results, a person can still find the URL for the allegedly infringing images on chillingeffects.org.

Following our remand in Perfect 10 II, Perfect 10 once again moved for a preliminary injunction against Google. Perfect 10 argued that it was entitled to an injunction because Google’s web and image search and related caching feature, its Blogger service, and its practice of forwarding Perfect 10’s takedown notices to ehillingeffects.org constituted copyright infringement. Additionally, Perfect 10 argued that it was entitled to an injunction based upon Google’s alleged violation of the rights of publicity assigned to Perfect 10 by some of its models.

The district court rejected each of these arguments and denied Perfect 10’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. In doing so, the court held that Perfect 10 had not shown that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief, and that it had failed to satisfy any of the other requirements for a preliminary injunction. The district court also resolved motions by Google for partial summary judgment, and held that Google was entitled to safe harbor protection under the DMCA for its caching feature, its Blogger service and, in part, its web and image search. On appeal, Perfect 10 claims that the district court erred in denying its motion for a preliminary injunction and also seeks review of the district court’s summary judgment order on the DMCA issues, arguing that the latter order is inextricably intertwined with the company’s request for injunctive relief.

II

We begin by considering whether the district court erred in denying Perfect 10’s *979request for preliminary injunctive relief. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish [ (1) ] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [ (2) ] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [ (3) ] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [ (4) ] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). We review the district court’s determination that the plaintiff satisfied each of these four factors for abuse of discretion. Park Vill. Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150, 1158-59 (9th Cir.2011). In doing so, our review is “limited and deferential.” Am. Trucking Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Lands Council v. Martin, 479 F.3d 636, 639 (9th Cir.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In explaining how it meets the four-factor test for preliminary injunctive relief, Perfect 10 argues primarily that because it has made a strong showing of likely success on the merits of its copyright claims, a court must presume it will suffer irreparable harm. In making this argument, Perfect 10 relies on a long line of cases, beginning with Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., 725 F.2d 521 (9th Cir.1984), where we held that “[a] showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm” for purposes of a preliminary injunction. Id. at 525. We have repeated and relied on this rule numerous times in the nearly three decades since Apple Computer. See, e.g., LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of Nev., 434 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir.2006); Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.1999); Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc., 886 F.2d 1173, 1174 (9th Cir.1989); Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir.1987).

These cases, however, all predate eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006), which indicated that an injunction in a patent infringement case may issue only in accordance with “traditional equitable principles” and warned against reliance on presumptions or categorical rules. Id. at 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837. In eBay, the Supreme Court considered a decision by the Federal Circuit holding that MercExchange was entitled to a permanent injunction against eBay. Id. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837. MercExchange had prevailed at trial in its patent infringement action against eBay, but the district court concluded that the company’s willingness to license its patents made it categorically unable to show irreparable harm from copyright infringement. Id. at 390, 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837. The Federal Circuit reversed, applying its rule “that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged.” Id. at 393-94, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “the traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief’ applies to “disputes arising under the Patent Act.” Id. at 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837. The use of presumptions or categorical rules in issuing injunctive relief would constitute “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice,” and “should not be lightly implied.” Id. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 320, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982)). The Court detected no evidence in the language of the Patent Act that Congress “intended such a departure” from traditional equity practice, id. at 391-*98092, 126 S.Ct. 1837, rejecting the argument that courts could find congressional intent to depart from the four-factor framework in statutory language giving patent holders a “right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention,” id. at 392, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(1)). According to the Court, this language did not require the issuance of injunctive relief whenever there was patent infringement, because “the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right,” id., and the relevant remedial provision stated only that injunctive relief “may” issue “in accordance with the principles of equity,” id. (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 283). Therefore, both the district and appellate courts had erred in adopting a categorical rule instead of making a fact-specific application of the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief. Id. at 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on and clarified its prior decisions under the Copyright Act.1 It noted that the language of the Copyright Act (like the Patent Act), states that courts “may” grant injunctive relief “on such terms as [they] may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.” Id. at 392, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 502(a)). Again, this permissive language does not evince a congressional intent to depart from traditional equitable principles, and the statutory language giving a copyright holder (like a patent holder) “the right to exclude others from using his property” does not suggest otherwise. Accordingly, the Court “has consistently rejected invitations to replace traditional equitable considerations with a rule that an injunction automatically follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed.” Id. at 392-93, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (citing N.Y. Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 505, 121 S.Ct. 2381, 150 L.Ed.2d 500 (2001)). Following this reasoning, the Second Circuit concluded that eBay abrogated its longstanding presumption “that a plaintiff likely to prevail on the merits of a copyright claim is also likely to suffer irreparable harm if an injunction does not issue,” because this presumption is “inconsistent with the principles of equity set forth in eBay.” Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 75, 79 (2d Cir.2010).

We agree with the Second Circuit. As explained in eBay, the language of § 502(a) is permissive and evokes traditional equitable principles: “[T]he Copyright Act provides that courts ‘may’ grant injunctive relief ‘on such terms as [they] may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.’ ” 547 U.S. at 392, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 502(a)). Nothing in the statute indicates congressional intent to authorize a “major departure” from “the traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief,” id. at 391, 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837, or to undermine the equitable principle that such relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that “is never awarded as of right,” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90, 128 S.Ct. 2207, 171 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore conclude that the propriety of injunctive relief in cases arising under the Copyright Act must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accord with traditional equitable principles and without the aid of presumptions or a *981“thumb on the scale” in favor of issuing such relief. Monsanto, 130 S.Ct. at 2757.

Although eBay dealt with a permanent injunction, the rule enunciated in that case is equally applicable to preliminary injunctive relief. This conclusion is compelled by Supreme Court precedent, cited in eBay, holding that “[t]he standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987); accord Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32-35 (1st Cir.2011); Salinger, 607 F.3d at 79-80.

In sum, we conclude that our longstanding rule that “[a] showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm,” Apple Computer, Inc., 725 F.2d at 525, “is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning” of the Court’s decision in eBay and has therefore been “effectively overruled.” Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).2

Ill

Having disposed of Perfect 10’s argument that the district court should have presumed that it would suffer irreparable harm, we now turn to whether the district court abused its discretion in holding that Perfect 10 had not established this factor. Perfect 10’s theory of irreparable harm is that Google’s various services provide free access to Perfect 10’s proprietary images, and this access has both destroyed its business model and threatened it with financial ruin, since no one would be willing to pay a subscription fee for material that is available without charge. To support this theory, Perfect 10 relies on several declarations by Dr. Norman Zada, Perfect 10’s founder, president, and major financial backer. In these declarations, Dr. Zada stated that the number of thumbnail versions of Perfect 10 images available via Google’s Image Search had increased significantly between 2005 and 2010. Further, Dr. Zada stated that the company’s “revenues have declined from close to $2,000,000 a year to less than $150,000 a year,” resulting in over $50 million in losses from 1996 to 2007, and an annual loss of at least $3 million since then, pushing the company “very close to bankruptcy.”

Given the limited nature of this evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Perfect 10 failed to establish that Google’s operations would cause it irreparable harm. While being forced into bankruptcy qualifies as a form of irreparable harm, Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 932, 95 S.Ct. 2561, 45 L.Ed.2d 648 (1975), Perfect 10 has not established that the requested injunction would forestall that fate. To begin with, Perfect 10 has not alleged that it was ever in sound financial shape. Indeed, Dr. *982Zada acknowledges that the company “los[t] money at the beginning” and has never made up that ground during its 15 years of operation. Dr. Zada also acknowledges that search engines other than Google contribute to making Perfect 10 images freely available. In one of his declarations, he states that, in addition to spending “at least 2,000 hours using Google’s search engine to locate infringements of Perfect 10’s copyrighted works,” he has also “spent thousands of hours viewing [infringing] websites and search results of other search engines, including Yahoo! and MSN.” Moreover, notwithstanding Perfect 10’s theory of irreparable harm, it failed to submit a statement from even a single former subscriber who ceased paying for Perfect 10’s service because of the content freely available via Google. Nor has Perfect 10 provided any evidence in support of its claim that Google’s alleged violation of the rights of publicity assigned to Perfect 10 by its models would cause it irreparable harm.

In sum, Perfect 10 has not shown a sufficient causal connection between irreparable harm to Perfect 10’s business and Google’s operation of its search engine. Because Perfect 10 has failed to satisfy this necessary requirement for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief, the district court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374.3

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Judge MCKEOWN; Concurrence by Judge WALLACE.

OPINION

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:

“The Platters” — the legendary name of one of the most successful vocal performing groups of the 1950s- — lives on. With 40 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 List, the names of The Platters’ hits ironically foreshadowed decades of litigation — “Great Pretender,” “Smoke Gets In Your Eyes,” “Only You,” and “To Each His Own.” Larry Marshak and his company Florida Entertainment Management, Inc. (collectively “Marshak”) challenge the district court’s preliminary injunction in favor of Herb Reed Enterprises (“HRE”), enjoining Marshak from using the “The Platters” mark in connection with any vocal group with narrow exceptions. We consider an issue of first impression in our circuit: whether the likelihood of irreparable harm must be established — rather than presumed, as under prior Ninth Circuit precedent — by a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief in the trademark context. In light of Supreme Court precedent, the answer is yes, and we reverse the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction.

Background

The Platters vocal group was formed in 1953, with Herb Reed as one of its founders. Paul Robi, David Lynch, Zola Taylor, and Tony Williams, though not founders, have come to be recognized as the other “original” band members. The group became a “global sensation” during the latter half of the 1950s,1 then broke up in the 1960s as the original members left one by one. After the break up, each member continued to perform under some derivation of the name “The Platters.” Marshak v. Reed, No. 96 CV 2292(NG)(MLO), 2001 *1243WL 92225, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. and S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2001) (“Marshak I ”).

Litigation has been the byproduct of the band’s dissolution; there have been multiple legal disputes among the original members and their current and former managers over ownership of “The Platters” mark. Much of the litigation stemmed from employment contracts executed in 1956 between the original members and Five Platters, Inc. (“FPI”), the company belonging to Buck Ram, who became the group’s manager in 1954. As part of the contracts, each member assigned to FPI any rights in the name “The Platters” in exchange for shares of FPI stock. Mars-hak I, 2001 WL 92225, at *3. According to Marshak, FPI later transferred its rights to the mark to Live Gold, Inc.,-which in turn transferred the rights to Marshak in 2009. Litigation over the validity of the contracts and ownership of the mark left a trail of conflicting decisions in various jurisdictions, which provide the backdrop for the present controversy. What follows is a brief summary of the tangled web of multi jurisdictional litigation that spans more than four decades.

In 1972, FPI sued Robi and Taylor for trademark infringement in California, resulting in a 1974 judgment in Robi’s favor, which held that FPI “was a sham used by Mr. Ram to obtain ownership of the name ‘Platters.’ ” Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318, 320 (9th Cir.1988) ("Robi I”) (quoting the 1974 decision). By contrast, an analogous dispute between FPI and Williams in New York resulted in a 1982 decision holding that FPI had lawfully acquired exclusive ownership of the name. Marshak I, 2001 WL 92225, at *7 (citing the 1982 decision). Williams attempted to circumvent the New York decision by seeking declaratory judgment in the Central District of California based on the 1974 judgment in favor of Robi. He was ultimately unsuccessful; on appeal, we reasoned that Williams could not avoid the claim preclusive effect of the New York judgment by relying on issue preclusion from another case in which he was not a party. Robi I, 838 F.2d at 328. We upheld the judgment in favor of Robi, id. at 330, and later affirmed the district court’s award of compensatory and punitive damages to Robi as well as its cancellation of FPI’s three registered trademarks using the words “The Platters.” Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir.1990) (“Robi II ”).

In 1984, FPI sued Reed for trademark infringement in the Southern District of Florida. Marshak I, 2001 WL 92225, at *9. The court denied Reed’s motion for summary judgment based on the preclu-sive effect of the 1974 California judgment against FPI. Id. Preferring to avoid trial, Reed signed a court-approved stipulation of settlement in 1987, under which he assigned to FPI all rights he had in FPI stock, retained the right to perform as “Herb Reed and the Platters,” and agreed not to perform under the name “The Platters.” However, the settlement included an “escape clause”:

In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction enters a final order with all appeals being exhausted that provides that The Five Platters, Inc. has no right in the name “The Platters,” then nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit Herbert Reed’s rights in the name “The Platters” and this agreement shall not inure to any party other than The Five Platters, Inc., and its successors and assigns or Herbert Reed.

A key question is whether the escape clause has now been triggered.

In 2001, Marshak, FPI, and other plaintiffs sued Reed and others for trademark infringement in the Eastern District of New York; Reed counterclaimed, also alleging trademark infringement. Marshak *12441, 2001 WL 92225, at *1. The court interpreted the 1987 settlement as “barr[ing] Reed from asserting that he has any right to the name ‘The Platters’ as against FPI or- those claiming through FPI except as specifically allowed in that agreement, or from otherwise interfering with plaintiffs’ rights to the use of ‘The Platters.’ ” Id. at *15. The court determined that the settlement’s escape clause had not been triggered either by Robi I, because the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment in favor of Williams indicating that FPI still had some rights to “The Platters” mark, or by Robi II, because cancellation of FPI’s federal mark registration did not resolve the question whether FPI was entitled to use the name “The Platters.” Id. at *19-20. The district court enjoined Reed from, among other things, interfering with FPI and Marshak’s use of the name “The Platters” except as permitted in the 1987 settlement (“the 2001 injunction”). Id. at *21. The Second Circuit affirmed. Marshak v. Reed, 13 Fed.Appx. 19 (2d Cir.2001).

Reed appealed Marshak I a second time on the basis that an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum issued around the same time triggered the 1987 settlement’s escape clause.2 The Second Circuit vacated and remanded Marshak I, Marshak v. Reed, 34 Fed.Appx. 8 (2d Cir.2002), but later affirmed the district court’s decision to adhere to its earlier decisions because the Ninth Circuit memorandum left “open the possibility, however remote, that FPI can establish a common law trademark right to the name ‘The Platters.’ ” Marshak II, 229 F.Supp.2d at 185, aff'd, Marshak v. Reed, 87 Fed.Appx. 208 (2d Cir.2004).

HRE, which manages- Reed’s business affairs and holds his rights, sued FPI and other defendants for trademark infringement in the District of Nevada in 2010. To get around the restrictions in the 1987 settlement, HRE creatively alleged that it owned the “Herb Reed and the Platters” mark and that defendants used a confusingly similar mark, namely “The Platters.” Herb Reed Enters., Inc. v. Bennett, No. 2:10-CV-1981 JCM (RJJ), 2011 WL 220221, at *1 (D.Nev. Jan. 21, 2011). FPI was not represented — according to Mars-hak, FPI was by this time a defunct corporation that had already transferred and no longer owned any rights to “The Platters” mark. The action resulted in a 2011 default judgment and permanent injunction declaring that (1) FPI “never used the mark ‘The Platters’ in a manner that [was] not false and misleading and thus never acquired common law rights to the mark,” and (2) “Reed, having first used the mark ‘The Platters’ in commerce in 1953, and having continuously used the mark in commerce since then has superior rights to the mark to all others,” including FPI and “anyone claiming rights from or through” FPI. Herb Reed Enters., Inc. v. Monroe Powell’s Platters, LLC, 842 F.Supp.2d 1282, 1287 (D.Nev.2012) (quoting the 2011 judgment).

In 2012, HRE successfully obtained a preliminary injunction against Monroe Powell, FPI’s former performer employee, and his company in a trademark infringement action in the District of Nevada. Id. *1245at 1284. Because Powell claimed to have acquired rights to “The Platters” mark through FPI, there was a question as to whether the 1987 settlement limited Reed’s ability to pursue a remedy. The district court held that, “even assuming that the 1987 stipulation applies, the escape clause has been triggered and no longer bars Reed from suing FPI or those claiming through FPI for trademark infringement.” Id. at 1288. The court reasoned that the 2011 Nevada default judgment, which “determined that FPI ‘has no right in the name “The Platters’ ” as required by the 1987 stipulation,” was “a final order with all appeals being exhausted” because the judgment was never appealed. Id. at 1288-89 (quoting the 2011 judgment).

In the period between the filing of the two Nevada actions, Marshak sued Reed for civil contempt in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that Reed’s first Nevada lawsuit violated the 2001 injunction. Marshak v. Reed, Nos. 96-CV-2292 (NG)(RML), 11-CV-2582 (NG)(RML), 2012 WL 832269 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2012). The court denied Marshak’s motion, holding that neither Reed’s use of the mark “Herb Reed and the Platters” nor Reed’s suit in Nevada protecting that mark constituted a violation of the injunction. Id. at *3-5.

Last year brought yet another lawsuit. HRE commenced the present litigation in 2012 against Marshak in the District of Nevada, alleging trademark infringement and seeking a preliminary injunction against Marshak’s continued use of “The Platters” mark. The district court held that HRE was not precluded from asserting a right in “The Platters” mark either by the 1987 settlement — the escape clause of which had been triggered by the 2011 Nevada default judgment — or by the equitable doctrine of laches. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00560-MMD-GWF, 2012 WL 3020039, at *8 (D.Nev. Jul. 24, 2012). The district court found that HRE had established a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm, a balance of hardships in its favor, and that a preliminary injunction would serve public interest. Id. at *8-17. Accordingly, the district court granted the preliminary injunction and set the bond at $10,000. Id. at *19. Marshak now appeals from the preliminary injunction.

Analysis

I. Res Judicata

As an initial matter, we address whether HRE is foreclosed from bringing the underlying suit by the New York actions, Marshak I and Marshak II, which resulted in the 2001 injunction barring Reed from interfering with Marshak’s use of “The Platters” mark except as permitted by the 1987 settlement. The district court correctly held that the New York actions do not have res judicata effect.

This action is neither barred by claim preclusion, which prohibits “the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised” in an action resulting in “[a] final judgment on the merits,” Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981), nor by issue preclusion, which prohibits “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748—49, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001). HRE is not “relitigating issues that were or could have been raised” in the New York actions because HRE could not assert its right in “The Platters” name at that time. As the 2001 injunction confirmed, Herb Reed was then bound by the 1987 settlement, and the escape clause *1246had not yet been triggered. Additionally, the New York actions did not come to a final judgment on the merits of the trademark dispute. Instead, the Eastern District of New York enjoined Reed from pursuing that litigation on the merits because of the 1987 settlement. The New York cases thus do not have res judicata effect on either the issue of whether the much later Nevada actions triggered the escape clause, or the issue of trademark ownership, both of which relate to this appeal.

Marshak quibbles with the district court’s reliance on the res judicata effect of the Nevada actions — the 2011 default judgment against FPI and the 2012 preliminary injunction against Powell. But the district court explicitly declined to use the 2011 default judgment as offensive collateral estoppel against Marshak on the issue of trademark ownership. HRE, 2012 WL 3020039, at *7-8. While the district court referenced the “last in time rule” to resolve any contradiction between the New York actions and the Nevada actions as to whether the 1987 settlement’s escape clause has been triggered, HRE, 2012 WL 3020039, at *7, such reliance was unnecessary. The language of the escape clause itself is sufficient and does not limit the type of action or who may bring an action that ultimately results in “a final order with all appeals being exhausted that provides that [FPI] has no right in the name ‘The Platters.’ ” Thus, Marshak’s complaint that he was not a party to the 2011 default judgment has no traction. Given that there is now a valid judgment with all appeals exhausted declaring that FPI never acquired common law rights to “The Platters” mark, the escape clause has been triggered on its own terms, and HRE is no longer bound by the settlement’s restrictions or the 2001 injunction enforcing the settlement.

II. Laches

Next, we consider whether HRE is barred from challenging Marshak’s use of “The Platters” mark by laches — “an equitable time limitation on a party’s right to bring suit, resting on the maxim that one who seeks the help of a court of equity must not sleep on his rights.” Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The district court properly determined that laches does not foreclose this suit.

The time gap from when HRE “knew or should have known about its potential cause of action” to when it filed its action was not long enough to be unreasonable. Id. at 838. HRE could not bring the trademark infringement suit until there was a final ruling with all appeals exhausted that triggered the escape clause. That ruling came in the Nevada default judgment in May 2011.3 HRE brought this action in April 2012, less than a year after the escape clause was triggered, and less than one month after the Eastern District of New York determined that HRE had not violated that court’s 2001 injunction. HRE, 2012 WL 3020039, at *8. This delay of under one year is shorter than the most analogous state statute of limitations period, giving rise to a strong presumption against laches. Jarrow Formulas, 304 F.3d at 837 (“[W]e hold that if a [Lanham Act] § 43(a) claim is *1247filed within the analogous state limitations period, the. strong presumption is that laches is inapplicable.... ”). Marshak agrees that the limitations period from the most analogous action under state law is three years under Nevada’s fraud and “catchall” statute of limitations. Nev.Rev. Stat. § 11.190(3). Because HRE brought its trademark infringement claim well within three years, we presume that laches is inapplicable. HRE simply did not dally or unconscionably sit on its claim. Thus, laches does not preclude consideration of HRE’s trademark infringement claim and request for preliminary injunction.

III. Preliminary Injunction

To obtain a preliminary injunction, HRE “must establish that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits, that [it] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in [its] favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). We review a district court’s preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, a standard of review that is “limited and deferential.” Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th Cir.2009). If the district court “identified and applied the correct legal rule to the relief requested,” we will reverse only if the court’s decision “resulted from a factual finding that was illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

. Marshak’s key arguments are that .-the district court erred in concluding that HRE had established a likelihood of success on the merits because Reed abandoned “The Platters” mark and that the district court erred in finding a likelihood of irreparable harm.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Underlying Trademark Dispute

As to its trademark infringement claim, to establish a likelihood of success on the merits HRE must show that it is “(1) the owner of a valid, protect-able mark, and (2) that the alleged infringer is using a confusingly similar mark.” Grocery Outlet, Inc. v. Albertson’s, Inc., 497 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). Tellingly, Marshak does not challenge the district court’s conclusions on these two points,4 except by asserting the affirmative defense of abandonment on the alleged basis that Reed abandoned “The Platters” mark by signing the 1987 Florida settlement. But “[a]bandonment of a trademark, being in the nature of a forfeiture, must be strictly proved.” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Gibraltar Fin. Corp. of Cal., 694 F.2d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir.1982). The district court did not err in concluding that Marshak failed to meet that burden.

Marshak has not established either of the two requirements of abandonment under 15 U.S.C. § 1127: (1) discontinuance of trademark use, and (2) intent not to resume use. Although non-use for three consecutive years constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment, the standard for non-use is high. Id. Non-use *1248requires “complete cessation or discontinuance of trademark use,” where “use” signifies any use in commerce and “includes the placement of a mark on goods sold or transported.” Electro Source, LLC v. Brandess-Kalt-Aetna Grp., Inc., 458 F.3d 931, 936, 938 (9th Cir.2006) (emphasis in original). “Even a single instance of use is sufficient against a claim of abandonment of a mark if such use is made in good faith.” Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 434 F.2d 794, 804 (9th Cir.1970).

HRE presented evidence that, despite the 1987 settlement, it continued to receive royalties from the sale of The Platters’ previously recorded material. The district court permissibly relied on the declaration of HRE’s general manager that “[s]inee ... approximately 1953, Reed continuously received royalties from Platters recordings, including during the time period after the 1987 Stipulation was signed and after the 2001 Injunction.” The declaration further indicates that HRE received and continues to receive royalties from domestic and international sales and names a range of companies that pay royalties for the use of The Platters’ original recordings in other compilations, television ads, movies, or other media. The receipt of royalties is a genuine but limited usage of the mark that satisfies the “use” requirement, especially when viewed within the totality of the circumstances— namely, that Reed was constrained by the settlement. See Electro Source, 458 F.3d at 940 (“Because the abandonment inquiry is tied to the unique circumstances of each case, it is appropriate to look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if genuine, albeit limited, usage of the mark qualifies a trademark use ‘in the ordinary course of trade’ under § 1127.”); see also Carter-Wallace, 434 F.2d at 803-04 (holding that a mark had not been abandoned when the trademark holder offered a legitimate reason for making only nominal sales, namely waiting for trademark ownership issues to be fully litigated and resolved). Receipt of royalties certainly qualifies as placemént of “The Platters” mark on goods sold, and supports the finding that there was no abandonment. See Marshak v. Treadwell, 240 F.3d 184, 199 (3d Cir.2001) (“A successful musical group does not abandon its mark unless there is proof that the owner ceased to commercially exploit the mark’s secondary meaning in the music industry.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We are not persuaded by Marshak’s view that HRE’s receipt of royalties violated the 1987 settlement and thus is not a “bona fide use” under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, capable of obviating abandonment. It is far from clear that the 1987 settlement, which focused on “the right to perform or entertain” and explicitly excluded “commercial recordings,” forbade HRE from collecting royalties on previously recorded material. Additionally, when Marshak sued Reed for civil contempt alleging that Reed had violated the 2001 injunction enforcing the 1987 settlement, Marshak “d[id] not contest that Reed was entitled to such royalties,” and the Eastern District of New York held that there was not sufficient evidence “that Reed used ‘The Platters’ mark in a manner inconsistent with the 2001 Injunction.” Marshak, 2012 WL 832269, at *3.

We conclude that the record supports the district court’s determination that HRE did not abandon “The Platters” mark.

B. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

We next address the likelihood of irreparable harm. As the district court acknowledged, two recent Supreme Court cases have cast doubt on the validity of this court’s previous rule that the likelihood of “irreparable injury may be pre*1249sumed from a showing of likelihood of success on the merits of a trademark infringement claim.” Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm’t Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1066 (9th Cir.1999) (emphasis added). Since Brookfield, the landscape for benchmarking irreparable harm has changed with the Supreme Court’s decisions in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641, in 2006, and Winter in 2008.

In eBay, the Court held that the traditional four-factor test employed by courts of equity, including the requirement that the plaintiff must establish irreparable injury in seeking a permanent injunction, applies in the patent context. 547 U.S. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837. Likening injunctions in patent cases to injunctions under the Copyright Act, the Court explained that it “has consistently rejected ... a rule that an injunction automatically follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed,” and emphasized that a departure from the traditional principles of equity “should not be lightly implied.” Id. at 391-93, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (citations omitted). The same principle applies to trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Just as “[njothing in the Patent Act indicates that Congress intended such a departure,” so too nothing in the Lanham Act indicates that Congress intended a departure for trademark infringement cases. Id. at 391-92, 126 S.Ct. 1837. Both statutes provide that injunctions may be granted in accordance with “the principles of equity.” 35 U.S.C. § 283; 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a).

In Winter, the Court underscored the requirement that the plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” 555 U.S. at 22, 129 S.Ct. 365 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). The Court reversed a preliminary injunction because it was based only on a “possibility” of irreparable harm, a standard that is “too lenient.” Id. Winter’s admonition that irreparable harm must be shown to be likely in the absence of a preliminary injunction also forecloses the presumption of irreparable harm here.

Following eBay and Winter, we held that likely irreparable harm must be demonstrated to obtain a preliminary injunction in a copyright infringement ease and that actual irreparable harm must be demonstrated to obtain a permanent injunction in a trademark infringement action. Flexible Lifeline Sys. v. Precision Lift, Inc., 654 F.3d 989, 998 (9th Cir.2011); Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc., v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1137-38 (9th Cir.2006). Our imposition of the irreparable harm requirement for a permanent injunction in a trademark ease applies with equal force in the preliminary injunction context. Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (explaining that the standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction except that “likelihood of’ is replaced with “actual”). We now join other circuits in holding that the eBay principle — that a plaintiff must establish irreparable harm — applies to a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement case. See N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc., 522 F.3d 1211, 1228-29 (11th Cir.2008); Audi AG v. D’Amato, 469 F.3d 534, 550 (6th Cir.2006) (applying the requirement to a permanent injunction in a trademark infringement action).

Having anticipated that the Supreme Court’s decisions in eBay and Winter signaled a shift away from the presumption of irreparable harm, the district court examined irreparable harm in its own right, explaining that HRE must “establish that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate” for the injury arising from Marshak’s *1250continuing allegedly infringing use of the mark. HRE, 2012 WL 3020039, at *15. Although the district court identified the correct legal principle, we conclude that the record does not support a determination of the likelihood of irreparable harm.

Marshak asserts that the district court abused its discretion by relying on “unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm [HRE] might suffer.” We agree.

The district court’s analysis of irreparable harm is cursory and conclusory, rather than being grounded in any evidence or showing offered by HRE. To begin, the court noted that it “cannot condone trademark infringement simply because it has been occurring for a long time and may continue to occur.” The court went on to note that to do so “could encourage wide-scale infringement on the part of persons hoping to tread on the goodwill and fame of vintage music groups.” Fair enough. Evidence of loss of control over business reputation and damage to goodwill could constitute irreparable harm. See, e.g., Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that evidence of loss of customer goodwill supports finding of irreparable harm). Here, however, the court’s pronouncements are grounded in platitudes rather than evidence, and relate neither to whether “irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction,” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, nor to whether legal remedies, such as money damages, are inadequate in this case. It may be that HRE could establish the likelihood of irreparable harm. But missing from this record is any such evidence.

In concluding its analysis, the district court simply cited to another district court case in Nevada “with a substantially similar claim” in which the court found that “the harm to Reed’s reputation caused by a different unauthorized Platters group warranted a preliminary injunction.” HRE, 2012 WL 3020039, at *15-16. As with its speculation on future harm, citation to a different case with a different record does not meet the standard of showing “likely” irreparable harm.

Even if we comb the record for support or inferences of irreparable harm, the strongest evidence, albeit evidence not cited by the district court, is an email from a potential customer complaining to Marshak’s booking agent that the customer wanted Herb Reed’s band rather than another tribute band. This evidence, however, simply underscores customer confusion, not irreparable harm.5

The practical effect of the district court’s conclusions, which included no factual findings, is to reinsert the now-rejected presumption of irreparable harm based solely on a strong case of trademark infringement. Gone are the days when “[o]nce the plaintiff in an infringement action has established a likelihood of confusion, it is ordinarily presumed that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if injunctive relief does not issue.” Rodeo Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International Inc., 725 *1251F.2d 521, 526 (9th Cir.1984)). This approach collapses the likelihood of success and the irreparable harm factors. Those seeking injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm. As in Flexible Lifeline, 654 F.3d at 1000, the fact that the “district court made no factual findings that would support a likelihood of irreparable harm,” while not necessarily establishing a lack of irreparable harm, leads us to reverse the preliminary injunction and remand to the district court.

In light of our determination that the record fails to support a finding of likely irreparable harm, we need not address the balance of equities and public interest factors.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I agree that the district court’s preliminary injunction should be reversed. However, I write separately to emphasize that we are solely reviewing a preliminary injunction, and that we thus can express no view on issues arising after a trial dealing with a permanent injunction. See, e.g., Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1234-35, 1238 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that the court, in reviewing a preliminary injunction, “express[ed] no opinion on the ultimate merits of [the] action”).

OPINION OF THE COURT

NYGAARD, Circuit Judge

In this Lanham Act case, appellant Charles Jacquin Et Cie, Inc. (“Jacquin”) alleged that Destilería Serralles, Inc. (“DSI”) and Crown Marketing International (“Crown”) infringed on its products’ trade dress in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and state common law. The district court directed a verdict in favor of DSI and Crown on Jacquin’s compensatory and punitive damages claim 730 F.Supp. 662. The jury found that Jacquin’s trade dress had acquired secondary meaning and that there was a likelihood of confusion with DSI’s trade dress, and the district court crafted injunctive relief to protect Jacquin. Jacquin appeals the scope of that injunction and the district court’s directed verdict on punitive damages. We will affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

*470I.

Jacquin, a Pennsylvania corporation, produces alcoholic beverages, including cordials. DSI, a Puerto Rican corporation, produces rum and rum schnapps. Crown was a Florida partnership which distributed DSI’s products in the continental United States. At the time of trial, Crown was no longer in business.1

In 1968 Jacquin developed a bottle of a particular shape for its line of cordials. The bottle is 10 and % inches high, with a beveled or tapered bottom. Jacquin has consistently used this same shape of bottle for all the cordials in its line. Jacquin promotes its cordials through billboards, print ads, and other materials. The district court found that approximately 75 per cent of Jacquin’s promotional materials include the bottle as part of the advertisement.

In 1985, representatives of Peter Harvey Wines (“PHW”) suggested to DSI that it produce a rum-based schnapps which PHW would market in the United States. The representatives of PHW suggested that the rum schnapps be sold in a bottle similar to the bottle used for Blackstone whiskey in Mexico. The Blackstone whiskey bottle has a beveled bottom. In 1986, DSI submitted a Blackstone whiskey bottle to Owens-Illinois, Inc., a bottle manufacturer, to use as a sample. DSI instructed Owens-Illinois to increase the height of the bottle to 10 inches and to make a few other minor adjustments.

The bottle developed by Owens-Illinois became the bottle DSI uses for Don Juan rum schnapps in the United States. The Don Juan bottle is shorter than Jacquin’s, and Jacquin’s bottle has a longer neck. The Don Juan bottle has an eight sided cross-section while the Jacquin’s bottle has a four sided cross-section. However, the Don Juan bottle has a similar appearance to the Jacquin’s bottle when viewed from the front, primarily because both have beveled bottoms.

In the fall of 1987, DSI sold 2,700 cases of Don Juan schnapps to Crown for distribution in the United States. Crown sold Don Juan in New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Maine. In February 1988, Jacquin sent a cease and desist letter to Crown, alleging that the Don Juan bottle infringed on Jacquin’s distinctive trade dress. Later that year, DSI repurchased 1,421 unsold cases of Don Juan from Crown.

Jacquin filed suit alleging that the Don Juan bottle infringed on its trade dress in violation of section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)2, and common law. Jacquin sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief. At trial and following Jacquin’s case in chief, the district court directed a verdict for DSI on Jacquin’s compensatory and punitive damage claims. The district court concluded that Jacquin had failed to demonstrate actual consumer confusion and thus compensatory damages under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act were inappropriate. On Jacquin’s claim for punitive damages under Pennsylvania common law, the district court concluded that Jacquin’s evidence that DSI had intentionally copied Jacquin’s bottle was insufficient.

On Jacquin’s request for injunctive relief, the district court concluded that Jac-quin could obtain injunctive relief if it demonstrated secondary meaning in its trade dress and a likelihood of consumer confusion. The district court denied DSI’s motion for a directed verdict on this claim, *471holding that secondary meaning in the bottle design and a likelihood of consumer confusion were issues best left to the jury. After DSI presented its case, the jury was asked to answer two special interrogatories:

1) Has the shape of the plaintiffs bottle acquired secondary meaning?

Yes_ No_

(If your answer to this question is “yes,” please go to the next question. If it is “no,” your deliberations are over; please return to the courtroom.)

2) Is defendants’ bottle as it appears in the market-place likely to lead consumers to think that the defendant’s product was produced by the plaintiff or some entity related to the plaintiff?

Yes_ No_

The jury answered “yes” to both questions.

In response to the parties’ post-verdict motions, the district court considered whether it was bound by the jury’s verdict, since the only claim remaining when the case went to the jury was for equitable relief. The court concluded that it would not have been bound, had it notified the parties that the jury would be advisory only. Since it did not notify the parties, the court decided that it was bound by the jury’s verdict. Neither party contests this decision.

The court then considered the extent of injunctive relief available to Jacquin. Although the jury found that Jacquin’s bottle had acquired secondary meaning, it had not determined in which markets the bottle had acquired this status. The district court, after a thorough review of Jaequin’s sales records, concluded that the bottle had acquired secondary meaning only in Pennsylvania, and issued an injunction prohibiting DSI from using its bottle for cordial or specialty beverages in Pennsylvania. Jac-quin appeals.

II.

The first issue is whether the district court erred by directing a verdict in DSI’s favor on the issue of punitive damages. Our review is plenary. A verdict may only be directed if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no issue of material fact and only the verdict directed would be correct under the governing law. Macleary v. Hines, 817 F.2d 1081, 1088 (3d Cir.1987).

Jacquin’s claim for punitive damages is governed by Pennsylvania law. Pennsylvania follows section 908(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and allows punitive damages only for “conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.” Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 521 Pa. 97, 555 A.2d 800, 803 (1989) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2)). The district court found no evidence to support an award of punitive damages.3

Jacquin conceded at oral argument before us that it had offered no direct evidence of DSI’s outrageous conduct, evil motive or reckless indifference in designing its Don Juan bottle. Jacquin contends, nonetheless, that bad intent can be inferred from the striking similarity between its bottle and the Don Juan bottle, the prominence of Jacquin’s bottle in the marketplace, and the fact that DSI continued to use the Don Juan bottle after Jacquin had notified it that the bottle might infringe Jacquin’s trade dress.

Assuming that covert copying of a non-trademarked package is outrageous conduct, there was simply no evidence that DSI willfully set out to copy Jacquin’s bottle. The only testimony about the origin of the Don Juan bottle was elicited by Jacquin itself on direct examination—the unequivocal statements by Irwin Goldberg of Crown and Alberto Torruella of DSI that they used the Blackstone whiskey bottle as a model for DSPs rum schnapps bottle.4 Jac-*472quin’s bald assertion that its bottle design was so well known that DSI must have been intentionally copying does not make a prima facie case for punitive damages.

Similarly, the fact that DSI continued to market Don Juan after receiving Jacquin’s cease-and-desist letter does not support a finding of outrageousness. See e.g. Andy Warhol Enterprise, Inc. v. Time Inc., 700 F.Supp. 760, 766 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (continuing use of trademark after notification not sufficient for finding of bad faith). Jacquin’s argues that continued use of a mark demonstrates the defendant’s willfulness. We find this argument unpersuasive in a case where there is no registered mark, but only an asserted right to protection of a distinctive trade dress. Since there was no evidence of outrageous conduct or willful disregard for Jacquin’s rights, the district court did not err by granting a directed verdict in favor of DSI.

III.

The district court fashioned an injunction to protect Jacquin’s bottle in markets where it had established such market penetration that DSI’s bottle would present a real likelihood of confusion among consumers. The court concluded that Jacquin only had significant market penetration in Pennsylvania. Jacquin argues that it was entitled to protection in other markets.

We review the district court’s injunction for abuse of discretion. A district court has abused its discretion if it has rested its decision on “a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” International Union, UAW v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 820 F.2d 91, 95 (3d Cir.1987). Jacquin argues that, since a jury determined that secondary meaning and a likelihood of confusion existed in this case, we owe less deference to the district court. We disagree. Although the district court was bound by the jury’s finding on likelihood of confusion, the special interrogatories did not direct the jury to consider specific markets. Rule 49(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that in a case decided by special verdict, if the district court fails to charge the jury on a fact issue raised by the pleadings or evidence the parties waive their right to a jury trial on that issue unless they object. In crafting injunctive relief, the district court properly supplied its own factual findings to supplement the jury’s special verdict. Hence, when reviewing its execution of this task, we will only reverse the district court if it abused its discretion.

The proper geographic scope of an injunction in a trademark infringement case is determined by examining the market penetration of the mark. An injunction is appropriate only if the market penetration is “significant enough to pose the real likelihood of confusion among the consumers in that area.” 5 Natural Footwear Ltd. v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, 760 F.2d 1383, 1397 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920, 106 S.Ct. 249, 88 L.Ed.2d 257 (1985) (quoting Sweetarts v. Sunline, Inc., 380 F.2d 923, 929 (8th Cir.1967)). Market penetration of a trademark is determined by: “(1) the volume of sales of the trademarked product; (2) growth trends (both positive and negative) in the area; (3) the number of persons actually purchasing the product in relation to the potential number of customers; and (4) the amount of product ad*473vertising m the area. Natural Footwear, 760 F.2d at 1398-99.

We examine the market, as the district court did, by reference to state boundaries. Although state boundaries are not always appropriate delineators of markets, see Natural Footwear, 760 F.2d at 1398 n. 34, alcoholic beverages are distributed and regulated on a state-by-state basis, and state boundaries are uniquely proper for defining their markets. State markets are generally divided into “control” states, where the sale and distribution of alcohol is strictly regulated by the state, and “open” states, where state control is minimal. Jac-quin sells its cordials in both “open” and “control” states.

In Natural Footwear, we reviewed the market penetration of a New Jersey based clothing manufacturer. We determined that we need only consider market penetration in two states outside of New Jersey, since the clothing manufacturer had failed to establish sales above $5,000 per year or a total of over 50 customers for any one year in any other states. Jacquin argues that, since its sales of cordials exceeds $5,000 per year in Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, its market penetration is more than de minimis and it is entitled to protection in those states. Jacquin misunderstands our holding in Natural Footwear. Surpassing the de minimis threshold did not result in automatic protection for the clothing manufacturer in Natural Footwear. In fact, we held that the market penetration in the two states surpassing the de minimis threshold was insufficient to warrant protection. Natural Footwear, 760 F.2d at 1403.

Jacquin argues that it has also surpassed the threshold set out in Wrist-Rocket Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Saunders Archery Co., 578 F.2d 727, 733 (8th Cir.1978). In Wrist-Rocket, the court set a ratio of one sale of the product in question per 20,000 persons as a threshold for establishing secondary meaning. Jacquin’s efforts to treat these cases as establishing bright line tests is misguided. Whether a volume of sales is significant will vary with the product and the market. The numbers that result in injunctive relief in one case may not be significant in another.

In determining that Jacquin had only established secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion in Pennsylvania, the district court relied primarily on the volume of sales prong of the Natural Footwear test. The district court summarized Jacquin’s sales volume in the following chart:

STATE JACQUIN SALES TOTAL SALES PERCENTAGE

Alabama 371 67,622 5.4

Iowa 311 213,095 .14

New Hampshire 7,921 306,044 2.58

North Carolina 2,971 175,680 1.69

Vermont 315 82,469 .38

Virginia 12,112 225,034 .53

West Virginia 5,771 59,705 3.8

Pennsylvania 219,918 945,223 23.26

The district court concluded from these numbers that, since Jacquin’s sales were less than three percent in all but two areas other than Pennsylvania, Jacquin’s had failed to demonstrate “sufficient market penetration to warrant injunctive relief in any state but Pennsylvania.” At 666.

There are several mathematical errors in the calculation of percentages in the above table. The correct percentages for Alabama, Virginia, and West Virginia are .54, 5.38, and 9.66, respectively. The first error is of little consequence, since the correct percentage reveals sales even lower than the district court believed. The second two errors, however, are more troubling. The correct percentages for Virginia and West Virginia indicate that sales in those states *474may well support a finding of market penetration sufficient to establish secondary meaning. The district court’s findings in this respect are incomplete, since it is unclear what share of the market other cordials makers commanded. A three percent share may seem small in absolute terms, but if no other maker has more than a few percent share, three percent may be significant.

Since the district court crafted this injunction based on clearly erroneous fact findings, we will vacate the district court’s injunction to the extent it limited protection to Pennsylvania. We will remand for the district court to make appropriate findings on Jacquin’s market penetration in other states. We remand rather than conduct this analysis ourselves because it is not clear where the district court obtained some of the numbers it relied on. Jacquin submitted into evidence two annual reports of the National Alcoholic Beverage Control Association (“NABCA”), an industry group that compiles sales statistics for alcoholic beverages in several states. The sales summaries in those reports, however, do not correspond to the numbers in the chart the district court produced in its opinion.6 It may be that the numbers in the district court’s opinion are the correct ones, but since we are unable to determine this from the record before us, we will remand.7

IV.

Jacquin challenges the district court’s injunction because it limited protection of Jacquin’s trade dress to “cordials and specialties.” Jacquin argues that protection should have been extended to the larger class of “spirits,” which would include whiskeys, rums, vodkas, and gins as well as brandies and liqueurs. The district court limited the injunction because Jac-quin had failed to present any evidence that its trade dress had acquired secondary meaning within the distilled spirits market as a whole or that consumers of distilled spirits, as opposed to the subset of consumers of cordials and specialties, would likely be confused by DSI’s trade dress. The district court noted that the evidence at trial concerned only Jacquin’s cordials sales, and did not address the distilled spirits market as a whole.

We stated the test for determining when an injunction should issue against infringing but non-competing products in Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225 (3d Cir.1978). Secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion are again the standards, but the analysis proceeds somewhat differently than when addressing geographic scope of protection. Makers of non-competing products may be enjoined from using a particular mark or trade dress where a consumer might assume that the non-competing product comes from the same source as the trademarked product. Ten factors should be considered in this regard: “(1) the degree of similarity between the owner’s mark and the alleged infringing mark; (2) the strength of the owner’s mark; (3) the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase; (4) the length of time the defendant has used the mark without evidence of actual confusion arising; (5) the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark; (6) the evidence of actual confusion; (7) whether the goods, though not competing, are marked through the same channels of trade and advertised through the same media; (8) the extent to which the targets of the parties’ sales efforts are the same; (9) the relationship of *475the goods in the minds of consumers because of the similarity of function; (10) other facts suggesting that the consuming public might expect the prior owner to manufacture a product in the defendant’s market, or that he is likely to expand into that market.” Interpace Corp. v. Lapp, Inc., 721 F.2d 460, 463 (3d Cir.1983) (citing Scott Paper, 589 F.2d at 1229).

Applying this test to the evidence Jacquin introduced, we conclude that the district court properly limited this injunction to cordials and specialties. First, Jac-quin’s bottle and DSI’s bottle are similar in outline, but the similarity of the bottle designs is lessened considerably when the bottles are viewed with their complete labeling. Jacquin only asserted secondary meaning in the shape of the bottle. In determining the secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion, however, we need to view the total package as a consumer would. As for the strength of Jacquin’s trade dress, the district court found that it was prominent in only a few markets.8

Jacquin presented no evidence to establish the third factor, the care with which consumers select cordials or distilled spirits. Indeed, Jacquin presented no consumer evidence whatsoever. It presented no consumer surveys to show consumer expectations or actual confusion, so likewise neither the fourth nor sixth factor favors Jac-quin. The only evidence of DSI’s intent in adopting its bottle shape was the testimony that the bottle was modeled on the Blackstone whiskey bottle.

As to the seventh factor, there was evidence that, at least in the control states, all distilled spirits are marketed through the same channels and advertised similarly. Jacquin, however, has not demonstrated that the targets of its sales efforts for cordials are the same as any sales efforts DSI might direct toward consumers of other distilled spirits. Similarly, Jacquin introduced no surveys or other evidence showing that consumers would find that distilled spirits such as rum and vodka have a similar function as cordials. Finally, other facts indicate that consumers likely would not be confused by DSI using its bottle for rum or other distilled spirits. Jacquin does sell other distilled spirits, but does not package them in the same bottle as it uses for cordials. Evaluating all the factors of the Scott Paper test, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting injunctive relief to cordials and specialties.

V.

DSI argues in its cross-appeal that the jury’s findings of secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion should be vacated. DSI argues that the evidence presented to the jury was insufficient as a matter of law to support a finding of secondary meaning. DSI, however, failed to move for judgment n.o.v. after entry of the final verdict. Where a party has failed to move for j.n.o.v., we will not review the sufficiency of the evidence and direct a verdict for them. Woods v. National Life and Accident Ins. Co., 347 F.2d 760, 769 (3d Cir.1965); Anderson v. Haas, 341 F.2d 497, 502 (3d Cir.1965); 9 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2540 (1971).

DSI argues alternatively that the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on Jacquin’s failure to conduct a consumer survey. Consumer surveys, in which a representative sample of the consumers of a product are presented with the parties’ products in a controlled setting, are the most direct method of showing the likelihood of confusion created by an infringing defendant. Similarly, a plaintiff’s failure to conduct such a survey where it has the financial resources to do so, could lead a jury to infer that the plaintiff believes the results of the survey will be unfavorable. Eagle Snacks, Inc. v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., 625 F.Supp. 571, 583 (D.N.J.1985).

*476Nevertheless, we have not yet held that a consumer survey is mandatory to establish likelihood of confusion in a Lanham Act case and do not so hold in this case. While consumer surveys are useful, and indeed the most direct method of demonstrating secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion, they are not essential where, as here, other evidence exists. Accord Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Island Transp. Corp., 878 F.2d 650, 656 (2d Cir.1989); c.f. Yamaha Int’l Corp. v. Hoshino Gakki Co., Ltd., 840 F.2d 1572, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1988) (survey not necessary to show acquired distinctiveness under section 2(f) of the Lanham Act). Since a consumer survey was not necessary for Jacquin to prove its claim, the refusal of the district court to give the jury charge on failure to conduct a survey was not error.

VI.

We will affirm the district court’s grant of a directed verdict in favor of DSI on the issue of punitive damages and its refusal to give DSI’s requested instruction on consumer surveys. We will also affirm the district court’s injunction to the extent that it limited protection to cordials and specialties, however, we will vacate and remand the portion of the injunction that limited protection to Pennsylvania for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Each side shall bear its own costs.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge O’MALLEY. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge BRYSON.

*1145O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch”) appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, denying Bosch’s post-trial motion for entry of a permanent injunction. Because the district court abused its discretion when it denied a permanent injunction on this record, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter an appropriate injunction.

BACKGROUND

This is a patent infringement case involving windshield wiper technology, specifically beam-type wiper blades (“beam blades”). Beam blades are a relatively new technology that offers several advantages over conventional, or “bracketed,” wiper blades, including more evenly distributed pressure across the length of the blade and better performance in inclement weather. Part of Bosch’s business involves developing wiper blades, and Bosch owns patents covering various aspects of beam blade technology. In addition to its research and development efforts, Bosch sells blades to both original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket retailers. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., LLC (“Pylon”) also sells beam blades and has competed with Bosch for business from retailers such as Wal-Mart.

In August 2008, Bosch sued Pylon in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,292,974 (“the '974 Patent”), 6,675,434 (“the '434 Patent”), 6,944,905 (“the '905 Patent”), and 6,978,512 (“the '512 Patent”).1 On June 9, 2009, during a hearing regarding Bosch’s alleged failure to produce certain financial data, the court informed the parties of its preference for bifurcating the issue of damages and suggested that this procedural mechanism may address the parties’ discovery dispute. In response, Pylon moved to bifurcate the issues of damages and willfulness, a request that Bosch opposed. The district court granted Pylon’s motion, noting its “determin[ation] that bifurcation is appropriate, if not necessary, in all but exceptional patent cases.” Memorandum Order, Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., No. 08-542, 2009 WL 2742750 (D.Del. Aug. 26, 2009), ECF No. 123.

The parties subsequently moved for summary judgment with respect to the validity and infringement of various claims. On March 30, 2010, the district court granted Pylon’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the '512 Patent, but denied its motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the '974 and '512 Patents. The court also granted Bosch’s motions for summary judgment of: (1) infringement of claims 1 and 8 of the '974 Patent; and (2) no inequitable conduct and no invalidity for derivation as to the '905 and '434 Patents. The remaining issues were tried to a jury, which found: (1) claim 13 of both the '905 and '434 Patents valid and infringed; (2) claims 1 and 5 of the '434 Patent infringed, but invalid for obviousness; and (3) claims 1 and 8 of the '974 Patent invalid based on obviousness and derivation.

In light of the jury’s determination that Pylon infringed valid claims of the '905 and '434 Patents, Bosch moved for entry of a permanent injunction. In a memorandum opinion dated November 3, 2010, the court denied the motion on grounds that Bosch failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm. At the outset of its analysis, the district court noted an apparent difficulty faced by courts “struggling to *1146balance the absence of a presumption of irreparable harm with a patentee’s right to exclude,” and observed that other courts had “frequently focused upon the nature of the competition between plaintiff and defendant in the relevant market in the context of evaluating irreparable harm and the adequacy of money damages.” Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., 748 F.Supp.2d 383, 407 (D.Del.2010). The court also discerned a tendency among district courts to award permanent injunctions: (1) “under circumstances in which the plaintiff practices its invention and is a direct market competitor”; and (2) where the plaintiffs “patented technology is at the core of its business....” Id. at 407-08.

With these factors in mind, the court proceeded to assess the nature of the competition between Bosch and Pylon. In doing so, the court identified deficiencies it perceived in Bosch’s presentation of the competitive landscape, including a failure to “provide[ ] a clear, summary-level overview of the relevant market” and “a breakdown illuminating [the parties’] relative market percentages.” Id. at 408. The court also focused on the fact that “[t]his is not a clear case of a two-supplier market wherein a sale to Pylon necessarily represents the loss of a sale to Bosch” and “wiper blades alone are not at the core of [Bosch’s] business.” Id. at 408. Based on: (1) its conclusion that Bosch “fail[ed] to define a relevant market”; (2) the “existence of additional competitors”; and (3) the “non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business in relation to its business as a whole,” the court concluded that Bosch failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm. Id. Finding the absence of irreparable harm fatal to Bosch’s motion, the court denied the request for an injunction without addressing the remaining equitable factors of the permanent injunction inquiry.

Bosch timely appealed the district court’s interlocutory order, asserting jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292.

Jurisdiction

Whether this court has jurisdiction over an appeal taken from a district court judgment is a question of “Federal Circuit law, not that of the regional circuit from which the case arose.” Pause Tech. LLC v. TiVo, Inc., 401 F.3d 1290, 1292 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Woodard v. Sage Prods., Inc., 818 F.2d 841, 844 (Fed.Cir. 1987) (en banc)). Section 1292(a)(1) provides that “the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals” from “[interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions. ...” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Section 1292(c)(1), moreover, confers upon this court exclusive jurisdiction over such appeals if we would otherwise have jurisdiction under § 1295. Thus, on its face, the district court’s order denying Bosch’s request for a permanent injunction in a patent case- falls within the scope of § 1292(a)(1), (c)(1). See Cross Med. Prods. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“Medtronic appeals from an order permanently enjoining Medtronic from infringing the '555 patent. On its face, the order falls within the scope of § 1292(a)(1), (c)(1).”).

Pylon admits that § 1292(a)(1) provides a sound basis for jurisdiction, but contends that jurisdiction under that section “has not been established.” Appellee’s Br. 1. According to Pylon, Bosch was required to show that the order will have “a serious, perhaps irreparable consequence” and that the order can be “effectually challenged” only “by immediate appeal.” Id. at 20 (quoting Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 379, 107 S.Ct. 1177, 94 L.Ed.2d 389 (1987) and Carson v. *1147 American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981)). Pylon argues that Bosch failed to make such a showing and that we should, accordingly, “decline to exercise jurisdiction over this appeal at this time and dismiss with leave to refile after final judgment is entered below.” Id. at 23.

Bosch counters that the additional hurdles cited by Pylon apply only in cases involving orders that do not expressly deny an injunction, but have the effect of denying injunctive relief. Because its appeal is from an order “explicitly” denying a request for an injunction, Bosch contends that it need not make any additional showing for jurisdiction to attach under § 1292(a)(1). We agree.

This court has made clear that a party appealing an order that expressly grants or denies a permanent injunction need not also demonstrate that the order will have “a serious, perhaps irreparable consequence” and that “the order can be effectively challenged only by immediate appeal.” See Cross Med. Prods., 424 F.3d at 1300. When confronted with this issue in Cross Medical, we explained that these “Carson requirements” apply only where there is no order specifically granting or denying injunctive relief, but the appellant argues that the appealed order has the effect of granting or denying such relief. Id. We also observed that the “Supreme Court [had] confirmed our reading of Carson as applying only to orders that have ‘the practical effect of granting or denying injunctions.’ ” Id. at 1301 (quoting Gulf-stream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 287-288, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988)) (“Section 1292(a)(1) will, of course, continue to provide appellate jurisdiction over orders that grant or deny injunctions and orders that have the practical effect of granting or denying injunctions and have serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It is, thus, well-established that, “if the district court’s order expressly grants [or denies] an injunction, the order is appealable under § 1292(a)(1), without regard to whether the appellant is able to demonstrate serious or irreparable consequences.” Id. (quoting 19 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 203.10[2][a], at 14 (3d ed.2005)).

In this case, the district court entered an order expressly denying Bosch’s motion for entry of a permanent injunction. The Carson requirements are, thus, inapplicable, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).2

Standard of Review

This court reviews the denial of a permanent injunction for abuse of discretion. See i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 861 (Fed.Cir.2010). A district court abuses its discretion when it acts “based upon an error of law or clearly erroneous factual findings” or commits “a clear error of judgment.” Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2009). A clear error of judgment occurs when the “record contains no basis on *1148which the district court rationally could have made its decision or if the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful or clearly unreasonable.” Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 828 (Fed.Cir.1989) (quoting PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1572 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Bissel, J., concurring)). “To the extent the court’s decision is based upon an issue of law, we review that issue de novo.” Ecolab, 569 F.3d at 1352 (quoting Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2006)).

Discussion

Consistent with traditional equitable principles, a patentee seeking a permanent injunction must make a four-part showing:

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and the defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay, this court followed the general rule that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged, absent a sound reason to deny such relief. See, e.g., Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1247 (Fed.Cir.1989) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 842 F.2d 1275, 1281 (Fed.Cir.1988)). In addition, at least in the context of preliminary injunctive relief, we applied an express presumption of irreparable harm upon finding that a plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of a patent infringement claim. See Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1983) (“We hold that where validity and continuing infringement have been clearly established, as in this case, immediate irreparable harm is presumed.” (footnotes omitted)). Based on our case law, district courts also have applied a presumption of irreparable harm following judgment of infringement and validity to support the issuance of permanent injunctions. See, e.g., Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Safety 1st, Inc., 279 F.Supp.2d 526, 528-29 (D.Del.2003) (entering a permanent injunction after noting that irreparable harm is presumed in patent cases); Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 106 F.Supp.2d 696, 701 (D.N.J.2000) (same).3

In eBay, the Supreme Court made clear that “broad classifications” and “categorical rule[s]” have no place in this inquiry. 547 U.S. at 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837. Instead, courts are to exercise their discretion in accordance with traditional principles of equity. Id. at 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837. The Supreme Court, however, did not expressly address the presumption of irreparable harm, and our subsequent cases have not definitively clarified whether that presumption remains intact. See Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 702 (Fed.Cir.2008) (“It remains an open question whether there remains a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm following eBay.” (internal quotation marks and cita*1149tion omitted)).4 Our statements on this topic have led one district court judge to conclude that “the presumption of irreparable harm is at best on life support.” Red Bend, Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 2011 WL 1288503, at *18 (D.Mass. Mar.31, 2011) (citations omitted). We take this opportunity to put the question to rest and confirm that eBay jettisoned the presumption of irreparable harm as it applies to determining the appropriateness of injunctive relief. In so holding, we join at least two of our sister circuits that have reached the same conclusion as it relates to a similar presumption in copyright infringement matters. See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc, 653 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir.2011) (“[W]e conclude that our longstanding rule that a showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning of the Court’s decision in eBay and has therefore been effectively overruled.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68, 76-78 (2d Cir.2010) (finding that eBay abrogated the presumption of irreparable harm in copyright cases).

Although eBay abolishes our general rule that an injunction normally will issue when a patent is found to have been valid and infringed, it does not swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. In other words, even though a successful patent infringement plaintiff can no longer rely on presumptions or other short-cuts to support a request for a permanent injunction, it does not follow that courts should entirely ignore the fundamental nature of patents as property rights granting the owner the right to exclude. Indeed, this right has its roots in the Constitution, as the Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution itself refers to inventors’ “exclusive Right to their respective ... Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 (emphasis added). Although the Supreme Court disapproved of this court’s absolute reliance on the patentee’s right to exclude as a basis for our prior rule favoring injunctions, that does not mean that the nature of patent rights has no place in the appropriate equitable analysis. See eBay, 547 U.S. at 392, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (“According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right.”). While the patentee’s right to exclude alone cannot justify an injunction, it should not be ignored either. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed.Cir.2008) (finding in a post-eBay decision that, “[i]n view of that right [to exclude], infringement may cause a patentee irreparable harm not remediable by a reasonable royalty”).

The abolition of categorical rules and the district court’s inherent discretion to fashion equitable relief, moreover, also do not mandate that district courts must act on a clean slate. “Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.” eBay, 547 U.S. at 395, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (Roberts, J., concurring) (quoting Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 139, 126 S.Ct. 704, 163 L.Ed.2d 547 (2005)). In this area, as others, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic” when “it comes to discerning and applying *1150those standards.” Id. (quoting New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.)). This wisdom is particularly apt in traditional cases, such as this, where the patentee and adjudged infringer both practice the patented technology. See id. at 396-97, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (contrasting the relevant considerations in traditional patent infringement actions with certain cases arising now “in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees,” “[wjhen the patented invention is but a small component of the product,” and those involving “the burgeoning number of patents over business methods” (citation omitted)).

Over the past quarter-century, this court has encountered many cases involving a practicing patentee seeking to permanently enjoin a competitor upon an adjudication of infringement. In deciding these cases, we have developed certain legal standards that inform the four-factor inquiry and, in particular, the question of irreparable harm. While none of these standards alone may justify a general rule or an effectively irrebuttable presumption that an injunction should issue, a proper application of the standards to the facts of this case compels the conclusion that Bosch is entitled to the injunction it seeks. It is in ignoring these standards, and supplanting them with its own, that the district court abused its discretion.

We address each component of the four-factor test in turn.

I.

Bosch argues that the district court committed legal error by establishing categorical rules in its irreparable injury analysis. Specifically, Bosch contends that the district court adopted per se rules that “the existence of additional competitors” and “the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business in relation to its business as a whole” each independently preclude a finding of irreparable harm. Appellant’s Br. 26. Bosch further argues that, on this record, no court acting within its discretion could find an absence of irreparable harm. In this regard, Bosch points to evidence of: (1) loss in market share and access to customers; (2) Pylon’s inability to satisfy a judgment; and (3) direct competition between it and Pylon in “each and every distribution channel in [the relevant] market.” Id. at 26. According to Bosch, “decades of jurisprudence confirm that a patentee in [these] circumstances has suffered irreparable harm.” Id. at 33.

In response, Pylon argues that the district court never concluded that “there had to be a two-supplier market” or that “the wiper blade business had to be at the core of Bosch’s business in order for an injunction to be warranted.” Appellee’s Br. 27 (emphases in original). Instead, Pylon contends, the district court applied the “proper legal standard to the evidence presented and concluded, as a factual matter, that the evidence presented was inadequate to establish irreparable harm.” Id. at 28.

While we agree that the district court did not establish categorical rules, we nevertheless conclude that the district court committed legal error by the weight given to the factors cited, and made a clear error in judgment in its analysis of the irreparable harm factor. Specifically, while facts relating to the nature of the competition between the parties undoubtedly are relevant to the irreparable harm inquiry, the court erred in relying exclusively on the presence of additional competitors and on the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business. In addition, the court committed a clear error of judgment when it *1151concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is particularly true in light of Bosch’s evidence of: (1) the parties’ direct competition; (2) loss in market share and access to potential customers resulting from Pylon’s introduction of infringing beam blades; and (3) Pylon’s lack of financial wherewithal to satisfy a judgment. Given these facts, there is “no basis on which the district court rationally could have” concluded that Bosch failed to show irreparable harm. See Datascope, 879 F.2d at 828. We first address the court’s legal errors and then turn to the clear error of judgment.

A.

The court’s first legal error lies in its conclusion that the presence of additional competitors, without more, cuts against a finding of irreparable harm. It is well-established that the “fact that other infringers may be in the marketplace does not negate irreparable harm.” Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed.Cir.2005). As we explained in Pfizer, a patentee need not sue all infringers at once. Id. “Picking off one infringer at a time is not inconsistent with being irreparably harmed.” Id. Were we to conclude otherwise, we would effectively establish a presumption against irreparable harm whenever the market contains a plurality of players. Under such circumstances, the first infringer sued could always point to the existence of additional competitors. And, perversely, if that infringer were to succeed in defeating an injunction, subsequent adjudged infringers could point to the market presence of the first infringer when opposing a request for an injunction. Consequently, without additional facts showing that the presence of additional competitors renders the infringer’s harm reparable, the absence of a two-supplier market does not weigh against a finding of irreparable harm.

This principle, moreover, is not incompatible with the cases cited by the district court, in which courts found irreparable harm based, in part, on the absence of additional competitors. While the existence of a two-player market may well serve as a substantial ground for granting an injunction — e.g., because it creates an inference that an infringing sale amounts to a lost sale for the patentee — the converse is not automatically true, especially where, as here, it is undisputed that the patentee has sought to enforce its rights against other infringers in the market. The record reveals that Bosch has diligently pursued infringers since the time it first learned of Pylon’s infringing beam blades. Once it became aware of the infringement, Bosch immediately notified Pylon’s supplier requesting that it cease production of infringing blades, to which it agreed. Later, in October 2007, Bosch sued Jamak Fabrication-Tex Ltd. in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of its beam blade patents. See Robert Bosch LLC v. Jamak Fabrication-Tex Ltd., No. 07-cv-676 (D.Del.).

During the pendency of its suit against Jamak, Bosch learned that Pylon had started selling a new infringing product. Accordingly, in August 2008, three months after resolving its suit against Jamak, Bosch filed this action against Pylon. Bosch subsequently sued an additional competitor, Old World Industries, Inc., in March 2010 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Robert Bosch LLC v. Old World Indus., No. 10-cv-1437 (N.D.Ill.). For these reasons, the court erred in concluding that the absence of a two-player market effectively prohibits a finding of irreparable harm in this case.

*1152B.

The court also erred in relying on the “non-core” nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business in relation to its business as a whole. As other courts have concluded, the fact that an infringer’s harm affects only a portion of a patentee’s business says nothing about whether that harm can be rectified. See, e.g., Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc. v. Cobalt Pharma. Inc., No. 07-cv-4539, 2010 WL 4687839, at *12, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119432, at *36-37 (D.N.J. Nov. 10, 2010) (“Cobalt points to Roche’s size and profitability, and the small impact the likely harms would have on Roche’s overall profitability. That says nothing about whether such harms are irreparable.”). Injuries that affect a “non-core” aspect of a patentee’s business are equally capable of being irreparable as ones that affect more significant operations.

Under the district court’s approach, for example, a large industrial corporation such as Bosch would find it easier to obtain an injunction if it subdivided its operations into child companies, with each focusing on a particular product line. Under such circumstances, Pylon’s infringement would go to the core of the business of “Bosch Beam Blades LLC,” which would increase the likelihood of irreparable harm. No one could seriously contend, however, that the irreparability of any particular injury should turn on incidental details such as a patentee’s corporate structure. An injury is either of the irreparable sort, or it is not. Consequently, the district court erred in attributing weight to the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business. • See Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2008) (Lourie, J., concurring) (“[A] patent provides a right to exclude infringing competitors, regardless of the proportion that the infringing goods bear to a patentee’s total business.”).

It is true that some courts have referenced the fact that the patented product is at the core of a party’s business when explaining their bases for granting an injunction. TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 568 F.Supp.2d 500, 531 (D.Del.2008) (granting a permanent injunction after finding that “[p]laintiffs are also frequently successful when their patented technology is at the core of its business.... ”). The trial court’s error in relying on these cases again arises from its conclusion that, if a fact supports the granting of an injunction, its absence likely compels denial of one. That is not the law, however.

C.

In addition to these legal errors, the district court committed a clear error in judgment when it concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The record here contains undisputed evidence of direct competition in each of the market segments identified by the parties. Bosch also introduced unrebutted evidence of loss of market share and access to potential customers, as well as Pylon’s inability to satisfy a judgment. The district court, however, did not address any of this evidence, but, instead, focused on: (1) the absence of a two-player market; (2) the non-core nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business; and (3) Bosch’s alleged failure to define a relevant market. In view of the entirety of the record, we are left with the firm conviction that there is no basis on which the district court rationally could have concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. We begin with an overview of the nature of competition between the parties before turning to the parties’ arguments regarding harms arising from Pylon’s competition with Bosch and Pylon’s apparent inability to satisfy a judgment.

*1153Although the parties dispute the finer details of the nature and extent of their competition, we agree with Bosch that the undisputed facts show that it competes with Pylon in all of the market segments identified by the parties. Neither Bosch nor Pylon sells directly to consumers. Instead, both offer their blades to intermediaries, who then sell the same to consumers. Before the district court, Bosch identified three channels of distribution in the relevant market: (1) mass merchandisers, such as Wal-Mart; (2) automotive specialty retailers; and (3) original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”). Pylon did not dispute the existence of these distribution channels, nor did it identify the existence of additional channels within the relevant market. Rather, it disputed the extent of competition in each of these three markets. Specifically, Pylon argued, as it does now, that: (1) Bosch sells original wiping systems to OEMs for installation on new vehicles, while Pylon does not; (2) Bosch has a great concentration of customers in automotive specialty retailers, while Pylon lacks “a significant beam blade presence” in this market; and (3) “Bosch does not sell any beam blades to mass merchandisers.” Joint Appendix (“JA”) 880. Thus, while the parties disputed the extent of competition within each distribution channel, there was no dispute regarding the contours of the relevant market. While Pylon now asserts that it does not agree “that these channels comprise the relevant market,” Appellee’s Br. 34, it still fails to identify any additional distribution channels, and we reject its belated attempt to create a dispute as to this issue.

With respect to the mass-merchandiser channel, it is undisputed that both parties have competed for Wal-Mart’s business, which alone represents a substantial portion of not only the mass-merchandiser channel, but also the aftermarket as a whole. Both Bosch and Pylon approached Wal-Mart in 2006 in an attempt to secure its beam blade business, and Wal-Mart initially agreed to distribute Bosch’s ICON beam blades beginning in April 2007. Bosch, however, failed to make a timely initial delivery and, when it requested an extension, Wal-Mart refused, choosing to sell Pylon’s infringing product instead. Since losing the account, Bosch has made numerous efforts to regain Wal-Mart’s business and has even offered a new, cheaper blade in an attempt to compete with Pylon’s lower prices. Thus, while it is true that Bosch has not succeeded in selling its beam blades in the mass-merchandiser channel, the evidence shows that it competes with Pylon for business with the largest participant in the aftermarket.

The record, likewise, shows direct competition in the aftermarket specialty store segment. Both parties have sold beam blades to AutoZone, and, although Pylon has had limited success in securing business from other specialty stores, it has competed against Bosch for business from at least five of AutoZone’s competitors.

With respect to OEMs, Bosch sells its blades to most of the major car manufacturers, including BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Hyundai, Mercedes Benz, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Volvo. Pylon admits that it has sold beam type wiper blades to at least one OEM, and has attempted sell beam blades to at least two additional manufacturers. The undisputed evidence, thus, demonstrates that the parties directly compete for customers in each of the relevant distribution channels.

Bosch argues that the harm caused by this competition is irreparable because it has suffered irreversible price erosion, loss of market share, loss of customers, and loss of access to potential customers. It also contends that Pylon’s inability to sat*1154isfy a judgment renders its injury irreparable. As Bosch notes, the district court did not address any of these factors when concluding that an injunction should not issue.

In response, Pylon contends that, while “Bosch has preliminarily established that Pylon sells allegedly infringing beam blades, [it] has not established that Pylon’s sales have had any definable impact on Bosch’s sales of its own beam blades.” Appellee’s Br. 37. According to Pylon, Bosch failed to prove that it was Pylon’s competition, rather than that of other competitors, which caused it to suffer lost market share and price erosion. Pylon further argues that Bosch’s evidence of Pylon’s inability to pay is unsupported and speculative. We disagree.

While it is true that at least some of Bosch’s loss of market share is attributable to other competitors, it is undisputed that it was Pylon that secured the WalMart account, which alone accounts for a substantial portion of the entire market. Pylon argues that Bosch presumes “that Wal-Mart would turn to Bosch if Pylon were enjoined.” Appellee’s Br. 39. Bosch, however, makes no such presumption. Rather, Bosch relies on the fact that it previously secured the Wal-Mart account as circumstantial evidence that it would reclaim Wal-Mart’s business were Pylon enjoined. While the party seeking an injunction bears the burden of showing lost market share, this showing need not be made with direct evidence. Here, Bosch made a prima facie showing of lost market share, and Pylon proffered no evidence to rebut that showing.

Pylon, likewise, failed to rebut the testimony of Bosch’s Director of Product Management, Martin Kashnowski, regarding its loss of access to potential customers. See JA 954 (“[N]ot securing an account with Wal-Mart has made it much more difficult for Bosch to secure accounts with other mass-merchandisers, including Sears, Target and K-Mart. If Wal-Mart was carrying Bosch’s beam blades, then its competitors would want to sell Bosch’s beam blades as well to maintain a competitive position.”). With respect to evidence of price erosion, although Bosch could have developed the effects of Pylon’s conduct from that of other competitors more clearly, Mr. Kashnowski’s testimony on this issue also stands unrebutted. Consequently, Pylon’s arguments with respect to the sufficiency of Bosch’s evidence of lost market share, the loss of access to potential customers, and irreversible price erosion are not well-taken.5

As additional evidence of irreparable harm, Bosch introduced evidence showing that the financial condition of both Pylon and its corporate parent raised questions about Pylon’s ability to satisfy a judgment. Specifically, Bosch submitted: (1) a Risk Management Report indicating that Pylon posed a “[m]oderate risk of severe financial stress, such a bankruptcy, over the next 12 months” and fell within the 49th percentile nationally in the category of “Financial Stress,” JA 677; and (2) a public filing showing that Qualitor Inc., which holds 100% of Pylon’s stock, obtained a five million dollar loan at a rate of 8.46%, JA827. In response, Pylon did not dispute *1155the accuracy of these submissions, nor did it submit evidence demonstrating its ability to pay a damages award, either of past or future damages. Instead, Pylon responded with attorney speculation and argued that, if, “as Bosch alleges, Pylon sells so many beam blades, then there is little reason to suspect that Pylon will not have sufficient resources to pay a royalty to Bosch.” JA 893.

While the burden of proving irreparable harm was of course Bosch’s, Pylon’s failure to submit rebuttal evidence regarding its ability to satisfy an award of money damages is troublesome given the procedural history of this case. Because the district court granted Pylon’s motion to bifurcate damages, Bosch had no opportunity to obtain discovery relating to Pylon’s financial condition, or that of its corporate parent before the court considered its request for injunctive relief. Consequently, facts relevant to Pylon’s ability to satisfy a judgment were uniquely within its control. While Bosch’s evidence of Pylon’s inability to pay is not overwhelming — gleaned as it had to be from public records, in light of Pylon’s failure to introduce any rebuttal evidence or to even argue below or to this court that Bosch’s characterization of its financial status is inaccurate, and the unique procedural history of this case, we conclude that this factor favors a finding of irreparable harm.6

In view of the foregoing evidence, the record contains no basis on which the district court rationally could have concluded that Bosch failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that a remedy other than injunction is sufficient to address its harm. Consequently, the court committed a clear error of judgment in analyzing this factor.

II.

Turning to the remaining equitable factors, we conclude that, on balance, they also favor entry of a permanent injunction.

With respect to the adequacy of money damages, Bosch argues that it will continue to suffer irreparable harm due to lost market share, lost business opportunities, and price erosion unless Pylon is permanently enjoined. According to Bosch, money damages alone cannot fully compensate Bosch for these harms. We agree. There is no reason to believe that Pylon will stop infringing, or that the irreparable harms resulting from its infringement will otherwise cease, absent an injunction. Cf. Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. J. Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 1557 (Fed.Cir. 1994) (recognizing that “future infringement ... may have market effects never fully compensable in money”). More importantly, the questionable financial condition of both Pylon and its parent company reinforces the inadequacy of a remedy at law. A district court should assess whether a damage remedy is a meaningful one in light of the financial condition of the infringer before the alternative of money damages can be deemed adequate. While *1156competitive harms theoretically can be offset by monetary payments in certain circumstances, the likely availability of those monetary payments helps define the circumstances in which this is so. See, e.g., Canon, Inc. v. GCC Int’l Ltd., 263 Fed. Appx. 57, 62 (Fed.Cir.2008) (considering the improbability that the patentee could collect a money judgment as weighing in favor of an injunction); 02 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., No. 204-cv-32, 2007 WL 869576, at *2 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 21, 2007), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed.Cir.2008) (finding that a plaintiff demonstrated the inadequacy of monetary damages because “all three defendants are foreign corporations and that there is little assurance that it could collect monetary damages”).

Here, the only evidence of record is that Pylon likely will be faced with a substantial damages award for its past infringement and may be unable to pay even that. In the face of such evidence, the district court’s failure to consider the extent to which a forward-looking monetary award is a viable or meaningful alternative to an injunction was error.7

We also conclude that the third factor, the balance of hardships, favors Bosch. Pylon argues that “Bosch is an international conglomerate with a diverse product base,” whereas “Pylon is a small, domestic corporation that focuses on the manufacture and sale of wiper blades,” such that the parties’ respective size and business models demonstrate that an injunction would burden Pylon more than the absence of an injunction would harm Bosch. Appellee’s Br. 58. We are not persuaded. A party cannot escape an injunction simply because it is smaller than the patentee or because its primary product is an infringing one. See Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n. 12 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“One who elects to build a business on a product found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against continuing infringement destroys the business so elected.”). On the other hand, requiring Bosch to compete against its own patented invention, with the resultant harms described above, places a substantial hardship on Bosch. This factor, therefore, favors entry of an injunction in this case.

As to the public interest, we find that this factor is neutral. Bosch argues that Pylon’s inferior product “may potentially” compromise the public’s safety, Appellant’s Br. 43, but there is no support in the record for that assertion. Although Bosch also cites its right to exclude and Pylon relies on its right to compete generally, neither party offers specific arguments as to why, in this case, the public interest would be served or disserved by an injunction. Although this final factor does not favor either party, the remaining considerations lead to only one reasonable conclusion: that Bosch has shown that it is entitled to a permanent injunction.

Because the undisputed evidence conclusively shows that permanent injunctive relief is warranted in this case, we do *1157not believe that remand of this matter is appropriate. We agree with Bosch that, on the record as it stands, any alternative result on remand necessarily would be an abuse of discretion. Remand is particularly inappropriate here because it would only delay relief to which Bosch currently is entitled. Pylon has been competing against Bosch with a product that a jury has concluded infringes Bosch’s valid patents, and it has done so for seventeen months since the jury’s verdict and for nearly one year since the district court denied Bosch’s motion for a permanent injunction. It also has done so despite a record which contains compelling evidence supporting injunctive relief in Bosch’s favor. Further delay, which would amount to a stay of an injunction without a bond, would be inequitable.

We agree, as the dissent urges, that normally a district court should balance these equitable considerations in the first instance, but the facts of this case compel a different result. Unlike the cases on which the dissent relies, including eBay itself, where the district courts either could not have or did not apply the standard announced in eBay, the parties and the district court in this case were well aware of the eBay standard when developing and applying the record. Again, to the extent that bifurcation of the damages portion of the trial inhibited development of the record as it relates to injunctive relief, that was the result of Pylon’s doing. Remanding the action for additional hearings prior to entry of injunctive relief would punish the patentee for the district court’s decision, at Pylon’s urging, to bifurcate the trial and for the district court’s erroneous application of the law to the evidence before it. We cannot endorse that result.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, and because we find that Pylon’s remaining arguments are without merit, we reverse the district court’s denial of Bosch’s motion for entry of a permanent injunction and remand for entry of an appropriate injunction.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Costs

Costs are awarded to Bosch.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge,

dissenting in part.

I agree with the majority that the district court erred in its application of the eBay factors, and I therefore agree that we should not affirm the district court’s order denying an injunction. However, I disagree with the majority’s decision that the record compels the issuance of an injunction and I therefore dissent with respect to that aspect of this court’s judgment.

Whether Bosch is entitled to injunctive relief is a fact-intensive inquiry that requires a careful balancing of competing equitable concerns, none of which is dis-positive. The resolution of competing factual issues, such as the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the evidence that Pylon’s infringement has and will continue to have adverse effects on Bosch, is for the district court, which has tried the infringement portion of this case to verdict and is familiar with the record. I would therefore not direct the entry of an injunction, but would follow the ordinary course of remanding for the district court to decide whether an injunction should issue based on a proper application of the four-part test for granting permanent injunctive relief. See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (remanding “so that the District Court may apply that framework in the first instance”); Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp., 569 F.3d 1335, 1351-52 (Fed.Cir. *11582009) (“Although the district court did not consider the eBay factors, FMC nonetheless asserts that it made the required showing and that it is entitled to injunctive relief. However, we decline to analyze the eBay factors in the first instance.”); Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 811 (Fed.Cir.2007) (“If we were to weigh the evidence ourselves to reach a conclusion on injunctive relief, we would effectively be exercising our own discretion as if we were the first-line court of equity. That role belongs exclusively to the district court. Our task is solely to review the district court’s decisions for an abuse of discretion.”).

The majority concludes that on this record any decision by the district court to deny an injunction to Bosch would be an abuse of discretion. I disagree. In my view, there are enough open questions of fact bearing on the propriety of injunctive relief that we should not bypass the district court’s consideration of those factual issues on remand.

First, there is an open question whether, and to what extent, Pylon and Bosch compete in the marketplace. Evidence before the district court showed that Pylon is not the only competing manufacturer-distributor of beam wiper blades in the market. The majority points out that Bosch has sued several other manufacturer-distributors in addition to Pylon for patent infringement. With the exception of one case that has settled, however, the record does not reflect the outcome of those suits and thus it cannot be assumed that the other manufacturers actually infringe Bosch’s patent rights. In addition, the evidence is unclear as to whether Pylon’s presence in the beam blade market was, or continues to be, the reason that Bosch has not succeeded in its efforts to market its product to Wal-Mart, the largest aftermarket retailer of automotive parts. Thus, the proposition on which Bosch bases much of its argument — that Pylon’s actions are inflicting irreparable harm by causing it to lose sales — is at least open to question and requires further factual development. The majority is correct that it is not enough for the district court simply to conclude that the beam blade market is not a two-competitor market and to deny injunctive relief on that ground. But to the extent the number of competitors and other characteristics of the market affect the impact of Pylon’s sales on Bosch, those issues are important to Bosch’s right to injunctive relief; those intensely factual issues should be given further consideration by the district court.

As the majority points out, Bosch contends that, in addition to the loss of market share, it has suffered irreparable harm in the form of price erosion, loss of customers, and loss of access to potential customers, issues on which the district court made no explicit findings. The majority concludes that Bosch made a prima facie showing on each of those issues and that because Pylon did not rebut that showing, those issues can be conclusively resolved against Pylon. I disagree with that approach to the resolution of those factual issues. Bosch’s evidence on those issues was far from compelling; it is certainly incumbent upon the district court to consider that evidence, and it may be that the district court will find it persuasive. But that evidence was not so clear-cut that those issues can be resolved based on a shifting of the burden of proof. The evidence presents factual issues for the district court to resolve, and we should direct that court to resolve those issues rather than reaching out to decide those issues ourselves without the aid of the pertinent factual analysis by the district court.

Finally, there is a live issue as to the effect of the size and diversity of the two *1159parties: Bosch is large, and its wiper blade sales are only a small part of its business, while Pylon is small and wiper blades account for all of its sales. The district court regarded those facts as cutting against the issuance of an injunction on the ground that the economic impact of the lost sales would not result in irreparable harm to Bosch. The majority is correct that harm may be comparatively small but still irreparable — if, for example, Pylon is financially unable to compensate Bosch for its losses from Pylon’s ongoing infringement. But the respective size of the two parties affects another factor bearing on whether the injunction should be granted: the balance of hardships. As to that issue, the majority simply says that a party cannot escape an injunction just because it is small, and that requiring Bosch “to compete against its own patented invention” is a hardship in itself. While that may be true so far as it goes, the respective impact of an injunction on the parties is an important equitable consideration, and the impact of the injunction on each party can be significantly affected by their respective size and the nature of their business. That is not to say that the balance of hardships will necessarily favor Pylon, but only that the considerations to which Pylon points are legitimate factors bearing on the balance of hardships. It is the district court, not this court, that should consider those factors and weigh them in the overall equitable balance. To that extent, I respectfully dissent.