Difference between revisions of "EBay v. MercExchange"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(format)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
In ''eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.'', 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2007), a unanimous [[United States Supreme Court]] lifted an [[injunction]] against [[eBay]] for allegedly violating someone else's [[patent]].  Instead, the Court held that an injunction should issue in a [[patent]] case based on the same difficult, four-factor test for the issuance of [[injunctions]] in any other case in [[equity]].  This test requires a [[plaintiff]] to demonstrate:
 
In ''eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.'', 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2007), a unanimous [[United States Supreme Court]] lifted an [[injunction]] against [[eBay]] for allegedly violating someone else's [[patent]].  Instead, the Court held that an injunction should issue in a [[patent]] case based on the same difficult, four-factor test for the issuance of [[injunctions]] in any other case in [[equity]].  This test requires a [[plaintiff]] to demonstrate:
  
*(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;  
+
#that it has suffered an irreparable injury;  
*(2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;  
+
#that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, 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  
+
#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 disserved by a permnent injunction.
+
#that the public interest would not be disserved by a permnent injunction.
  
 
This ruling ended the judicial preference in favor of issuing [[injunctions]] in [[patent]] cases based on a patent-holder's fundamental right to exclude use of his invention by others.
 
This ruling ended the judicial preference in favor of issuing [[injunctions]] in [[patent]] cases based on a patent-holder's fundamental right to exclude use of his invention by others.

Revision as of 01:29, 19 November 2007

In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2007), a unanimous United States Supreme Court lifted an injunction against eBay for allegedly violating someone else's patent. Instead, the Court held that an injunction should issue in a patent case based on the same difficult, four-factor test for the issuance of injunctions in any other case in equity. This test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate:

  1. that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
  2. that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, 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 disserved by a permnent injunction.

This ruling ended the judicial preference in favor of issuing injunctions in patent cases based on a patent-holder's fundamental right to exclude use of his invention by others.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court, but only Justice Sam Alito joined it. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s famous statement that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S. Ct. 506, 65 L. Ed. 963, T.D. 3267 (1921) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.). Justice Justice Anthony Kennedy also concurred separately, and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.