He must demonstrate: "(1) that [he] has suffered an irreparable injury;(2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for the 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 …

—this 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

A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief.

—a number of courts, including this one, have been persuaded to the view that such a presumption no longer exists.

Defendants note in eBay, the Supreme Court abrogated the "general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances."

—holding that a categorical rule of granting an injunction to a prevailing patent holder abrogates a district court's discretion in granting equitable relief and runs afoul of traditional principles of equity

But in 2006, the Supreme Court cautioned against categorical rules that would undermine the traditional four-part test for preliminary injunctions in cases involving intellectual property.

The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is is an act of equitable discretion by the district court