21, 2003 Affidavit of Mr. Bryant, with exhibits; the February 6, 2004 Declaration of CO Hampton with Exhibits and the February 2, 2004 Declaration of Mr. Nguyen; and the February 9, 2004 Declaration of Mr. Bryant. 3. For A Permanent Injunction. Injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy. See C.A.C.I., Inc. — Federal v. United States, 719 F.2d 1567, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1983). The standard for a permanent injunction requires the plaintiff to show: success on the merits; there will be irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted; the balance of hardships favors the plaintiff; and granting the injunction serves the public interest. See Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. v. DePuy-Motech, Inc., 74 F.3d 1216, 1219 (Fed.Cir.1996); see also FMC Corp. v. United States, 3 F.3d 424, 427 (Fed.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). The party seeking an injunction bears the
holding that excluding expert testimony was harmless and did not affect the jury verdict because the subject matter of the testimony was only one factor and by no means a determinative one holding that the availability of the icrp is but one factor to be considered in determining undue hardship but it is not determinative holding that no one factor is determinative and the weakness of one factor may be overborne by the strength of the others holding that factor 10 should not be applied when the victim is the only one at risk holding that existence of partnership depends upon the conduct intention and relationship between the parties though no one factor is determinative it is necessary to examine the  relationship as a whole