{
  "id": "RL33429",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33429",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 315109,
      "date": "2006-05-19",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:02:35.589029",
      "title": "Availability of Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases: eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.",
      "summary": "The most significant legal right that patent law confers on the patent holder is \"the right to\nexclude\nothers\" from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the patented invention throughout the United\nStates, or importing the invention into the United States. Injunctive relief is the usual remedy that\ncourts authorize to prevent violation of this patent right. However, as the recent BlackBerry patent\nlitigation demonstrated, the desirability of an injunction in patent cases could be questioned in\ncertain circumstances, such as when an injunction's disruptive effects on the public may outweigh\nthe interest in enforcing the patent holder's \"right to exclude.\"\n In another closely watched patent case, eBay was accused of patent infringement for its\nwebsite's \"Buy It Now\" fixed-price purchase feature. Although a jury had found eBay liable for\ninfringing a business method patent owned by MercExchange, the district court refused to grant a\npermanent injunction against the Internet company. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the\nFederal Circuit reversed the denial, asserting that the \"general rule\" in patent disputes is that courts\nmust issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement, absent exceptional circumstances. In\n eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,  the United States Supreme Court unanimously\nvacated the\nappellate court's judgment and remanded the case to the district court. According to the opinion,\ndistrict courts have equitable discretion to award injunctive relief, and such decision is reviewable\non appeal only for abuse of that discretion. The Court explained that the four equitable\nconsiderations that traditionally govern the grant of an injunction apply to the same degree in patent\ncases as in other areas of law.\n Despite the unanimity of the  eBay  Court, the two concurring opinions reveal an\napparent\ndisagreement among the justices. One concurrence observes that courts have granted injunctive\nrelief to the patent holder in \"the vast majority of patent cases\" and thus courts should respect this\nhistorical practice. The other concurrence suggests that the recent emergence of patent holding\ncompanies and the \"suspect validity\" of some business-method patents are appropriate considerations\nfor a court to \"bear in mind\" when applying the four-factor balancing test for injunctive relief.\n The Patent Reform Act of 2005 ( H.R. 2795 ), currently being considered by the\nHouse Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, would, among other things,\namend the injunction provision in the Patent Act to require that a court, in determining whether\ninjunctive relief should or should not issue in a patent infringement case, \"consider the fairness of\nthe remedy in light of all the facts and the relevant interests of the parties associated with the\ninvention.\" As this amendment was originally proposed in part to address concerns with the Federal\nCircuit's \"general rule,\" it remains to be seen whether the  eBay  decision affects the status\nof this\nprovision of the bill.\n This report will be updated if events warrant such action.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33429",
          "sha1": "7d0830374e332cc3a83949d6e2614f887f9c78c3",
          "filename": "files/20060519_RL33429_7d0830374e332cc3a83949d6e2614f887f9c78c3.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33429",
          "sha1": "e11ad0d3f36b6011d445c55df515284a500a9e94",
          "filename": "files/20060519_RL33429_e11ad0d3f36b6011d445c55df515284a500a9e94.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}