EBay Arrives at Supreme Court: A Landmark Patent Case

MercExchangePatent_small1eBay v. MercExchange (on petition for certiorari).

The Supreme Court has agreed to review the question of “when it is appropriate to grant an injunction against a patent infringer” and will question the century-old precedent of Continental Paper Bag (1908).

The issues before the Court include:

  1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred in setting forth a general rule in patent cases that a district court must, absent exceptional circumstances, issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement. (Question proposed by eBay).
  2. 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. (Question proposed by Supreme Court).

 In its petition for certiorari, eBay spells out the traditional four-factor test for injunctive relief and argues that the four-factor test should apply to patent cases rather than the de facto per se test applied by the CAFC.  The four-factor test includes consideration of:

  1. Irreparable harm from not issuing an injunction;
  2. Whether an adequate remedy exists in law (damages);
  3. Whether the injunction would be in the public interest; and
  4. Whether a balance of hardships would tip in the plaintiff’s favor. 

According to regarded patent law professor Joseph Miller, this certiorari decision is breathtaking. “If the Court writes narrowly, it will be the most important patent case since Chakrabarty or Diehr. If the Court writes broadly, it will be the most important patent case (perhaps even the most important patent or copyright case) in a century.”

An injunction in this case would not threaten eBay’s core business, but is directed to the “buy-it-now” feature of the online auctioneer.

Links:

 

6 thoughts on “EBay Arrives at Supreme Court: A Landmark Patent Case

  1. 6

    Exclusive patent rights, Tamiflu, and eBay

    Patent rights are generally exclusive in nature. That is, a patent holder can choose not to allow anyone else to access the patented invention. However, there are limits to this exclusive power. Two recent events occurring in dist

  2. 5

    link to legalaffairs.org

    “EBay Arrives at Supreme Court: A Landmark Patent Case.” The blog “Patently-O: Patent Law Blog” provides this post. In advance of the actual oral argument, the case will be mooted before a bench consisting of bobblehead U.S. Supreme Court Justices…

  3. 4

    Supreme Court to hear eBay patent case

    eBay was found to have infringed MercExchange’s (and Tom Wolston’s) patents for online auctions and ordered to pay $35 million. The question the Supreme Court will consider is whether an injunction should normally be issued in a patent infringement cas…

  4. 3

    Supreme Court to hear eBay patent case

    eBay was found to have infringed MercExchange’s (and Tom Wolston’s) patents for online auctions and ordered to pay $35 million. The question the Supreme Court will consider is whether an injunction should normally be issued in a patent infringement cas…

  5. 2

    Blockbuster Grant Today

    The Supreme Court granted review today in the eBay v. MercExchange case. This case is a blockbuster, focused on the basic standards for injunctive relief, after a finding of infringement, in a patent case. Updates to follow.
    UPDATE 1: Patently-O B…

  6. 1

    Patent Injunctions – Cert Granted

    The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in eBay v. MercExchange. The order says: 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 prece…

Comments are closed.