Yes, they can appeal the district court's scope of injunction to the Fed. Circuit, then the Federal Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court. Just as important, they can request the Fed. Circuit to stay any injunction until the Fed. Circuit has made a decision, and so on to the Supreme Court. Of course, no one knows what the Fed. Circuit will do.
Note that the Supreme Court is now reviewing the Ebay case, which the issue on appeal is whether injunctions are appropriate in a circumstance involving a patent troll (selling no products) or, for example, whether royalities are sufficient. Given that the Supreme Court feels that this is an issue (decision sometime in June) worth considering, I think it is hard for the Fed. Circ. or Sup. Ct for that matter, to deny a stay of injunction until then. Look, the bottom line is that regardless, RIM will not fight paying into escrow at that 5.7% if NTP will win. What the down-side for RIM is what the previous poster indicated.. defnitely pissing off customers and shareholders.
It is important when considering the impact of the eBay case to remember that the Supreme Court specifically directed the parties to deal broadly with when injunctions are appropriate in patent cases and not to just confine themselves to the issues specific to the eBay and MercExchange dispute.
The use of injunctions generally in patent cases is being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
Agreed. Given the facts in the RIM case: 1 ) a classic patent troll case 2) where the USPTO has rejected all the claims (director-initiated), 3) assuming NTP appeals the USPTO, final determination on the validity of the patents WILL be certain in 1-2 years, 4) escrow payments of royalty being allocated, 5) public interest in keeping some semblance of BB service... I think this case is what the ramifications of the Ebay case is intended to address...
So far as the right of appeal someone else will have to help you. Here is an extract from the Supreme Court docket for the eBay case.
"Nov 28 2005 Petition GRANTED In addition to the Question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following Question: "Whether this Court should reconsider its precedents, including Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908), on when it is appropriate to grant an injunction against a patent infringer."