EBayInc.v MercExchange

更新时间:2023-06-07 06:32:18 阅读：评论：0

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)[1] is a ca in which the Supreme Court of

the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not automatically issue bad on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four factors traditionally ud to determine if an injunction should issue.[1]

Background

Online auction site eBay us practices in its online auction technology for which MercExchange owns patents, including U.S. Patent 5,845,265, which covers eBay's "Buy it Now" function - over 30 percent of the company's business. In 2000, eBay initiated negotiations to outright purcha MercExchange's online auction patent portfolio. When eBay abandoned its effort, MercExchange sued eBay for patent infringement and prevailed in a 2003 Virginia jury trial which found eBay had willfully infringed the company's patents. Following the verdict, MercExchange sought an injunction to prevent eBay's continued u of its intellectual property, but the District Court denied the request. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reverd the District Court, stating that there was a "general rul

生命在于运动英语e that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement abnt exceptional circumstances." Opinion of the Court

eBay Inc. v.

MercExchange, L.L.C.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 29, 2006

Decided May 15, 2006

Full ca

sheep是什么意思name

eBay Inc. , v.

MercExchange, L.L.C.

Docket nos.05-130

Citations547 U.S.388 (more)

126 S. Ct. 1837; 164 L. Ed. 2d 641;

2006 U.S. LEXIS 3872; 74 U.S.L.W.

4248

山市翻译Prior history Summary judgment granted and

denied in part to plaintiff and

defendants, 271 F. Supp. 2d 789 (E.D.

Va. 2002); motion to amend answer

granted, motion to dismiss denied,

271 F. Supp. 2d 784 (E.D. Va. 2002);

permanent injunction denied,

judgment as a matter of law granted

and denied in part, final judgment

entered in part, 275 F. Supp. 2d 695

(E.D. Va. 2003); affirmed in part,

reverd in part, vacated, 401 F.3d

1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005); rehearing

denied, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 10220

(Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2006); cert.

granted, 126 S. Ct. 733 (2005)

Holding

Court of Appeals erred in directing issuance of a permanent injunction against eBay, adjudged to have infringed a patent, without applying traditional four-factor injunction standard. Order of Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded.

Court membership

Chief Justice

John G. Roberts

Associate Justices

John P. Stevens·Antonin Scalia

Anthony Kennedy·David Souter

Clarence Thomas·Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Stephen Breyer·Samuel Alito

Ca opinions

Contents

⏹1Background

⏹2Opinion of the Court

⏹ 2.1Concurring opinions

⏹3Subquent developments

⏹4See also

⏹5References

⏹6Further reading

⏹7External links

The Supreme Court overturned the Federal

Circuit's approval of the injunction, holding that nothing in the Patent Act eliminated the traditional reliance on weighing the equitable factors

considered in determining whether an injunction should issue. But it also ruled that District Court erred in denying an injunction on the basis that MercExchange does not itlf practice the patented invention.

"That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law 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 disrved by a

permanent injunction. The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abu of discretion. (...) Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals below fairly applied the principles.""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 cas. Most notably, it concluded that a “plaintiff's willingness to licen 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 rearchers or lf-made inventors, might reasonably prefer to licen their patents, rather than undertake efforts to cure the financing necessary to bring their works to market themlves. Such patent holders may be able to satisfy the traditional four-factor test, and we e no basis for categorically denying them the opportunity to do so."

The court noted that it had consistently rejected invitations to replace traditional equitable

considerations with a rule allowing automatic injunctions in its copyright law cas such as New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001).

Concurring opinions

While all eight justices (Justice Alito did not participate) joined the majority opinion penned by Justice Thomas which stated that there should be no general rule as to when an injunction should issue in a patent ca, there were two concurring opinions with three and four justices respectively, tting out suggested guidelines for granting injunctions.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Ginsburg, pointing out that from "at least the early 19th century, courts have granted injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement in the vast majority of patent cas," by applying the four-factor test.

imb

On the other hand, Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, wrote in a parate concurring opinion:

csbs"In cas 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 prent

Majority Thomas, joined by unanimous

Concurrence Roberts, joined by Scalia, Ginsburg Concurrence Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter,

Breyer

Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of

the ca.

新东方住宿班Laws applied 35 U.S.C.§ 283

considerations quite unlike earlier cas. An industry has developed in which firms u

patents not as a basis for producing and lling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining

licensing fees. ... For the firms, an injunction, and the potentially rious sanctions

arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees

to companies that ek to buy licens to practice the patent. ... When the patented

invention is but a small component of the product the companies ek 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 and an injunction

美国电影排行榜may not rve the public interest. In addition injunctive relief may have different

conquences 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 the patents may affect the calculus under the four-factor

test." [1]

Thus, the Roberts opinion leaned more heavily in favor of granting injunctions in eBay and similar cas, while the Kennedy opinion expresd skepticism, particularly where the validity of the patent has also been challenged and remains unttled. Neither of the concurring opinions carries the force of law, since neither was supported by a majority of the Court.

Subquent developments

On July 30, 2007, the District Court once again issued an order denying the injunction, ruling that, ba

d on MercExchange's history of licensing or attempting to licen the patent, monetary damages

of $30 million dollars was a sufficient remedy.[2][3] On February 28, 2008, the parties announced that they had reached a ttlement after six years of litigation. Under the ttlement, MercExchange was to

assign the patents to eBay; the terms of the ttlement were otherwi confidential.[4][5]