the market. Boeh-ringer, in turn, explains that it seeks two types of recalls in this case; a mandatory recall and a voluntary recall. First, Boeh-ringer requests a mandatory recall of all of the infringing products which Schering currently owns. Second, Boehringer requests a voluntary recall of “products not owned by Schering, but in the possession of its distributors and customers.” Letter of J. Gordon to Court of July 11, 2000. The scope of an injunction is left to the sound discretion of the court and may include an appropriate recall of infringing goods. Johns Hopkins University v. Cellpro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1354 (Fed.Cir.1998) (scope of injunctive relief is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Perfect Fit Industries, Inc. v. Acme Quilting Co., Inc., 646 F.2d 800, (2d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Rohm and Haas Co. v. Cumberland Chemical
holding that the idea grants district courts broad discretion to craft appropriate relief recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals recognizing trial courts power to fashion a remedy appropriate to the vindication of a prior consent judgment recognizing the broad power of federal courts to fashion appropriate relief recognizing the supervisory power of appellate courts