ADDING LINKS IS TEMPORARILY BLOCKED - if you want to add a link, just put a space in it so that it doesn't work. The admin will then fix the link for you very quickly. This will be fixed as soon as I have the new spam blocking system in place.

SitemapCountriesWhy abolish?Law proposalsStudiesCase lawPatent office case lawLawsuits


EBay v. MercExchange ruling by US Supreme Court on 15 May 2006

From en.swpat.org
Jump to: navigation, search

eBay v. MercExchange is a case decided in 2006 by the US Supreme Court. The ruling may slightly reduce the problems caused by patent trolls by increasing the requirements faced by a patent holders who seek injunctive relief.

Contents

[edit] Subjecting injunctive relief to higher requirements

Public Patent Foundation summarised this ruling thusly:

[T]he Supreme Court agreed with PUBPAT and unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's previous habit of automatically granting injunctions in patent infringement cases. Instead, the Supreme Court held that ... [o]ne of the four factors to be considered by a court before granting a permanent injunction in the future is the impact any such injunction will have on the general public.

Patently-O comments that the higher standards of this four point test are further confirmed by Supreme Court's Monsanto v. Geertson ruling:

An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of a course.[1]

[edit] Related pages on en.swpat.org

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. "Patents that Exhibit "Potential Vagueness and Suspect Validity"". http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/07/patents-that-exhibit-potential-vagueness-and-suspect-validity.html. "In eBay v. MercExchange (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that an adjudged infringer should only suffer permanent injunctive relief once the traditional four-factor test of equity had been satisfied. This general priciple was recently supported by the non-patent Supreme Court case of Monsanto v. Geertson (2010). In Monsanto, the court wrote “An injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy, which should not be granted as a matter of a course.”" 


This wiki is part of the End Software Patents (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see:
>> endsoftwarepatents.org (Main ESP website) <<
>> endsoftwarepatents.org/news (News) <<

This wiki is publicly editable. (See: en.swpat.org:About) It's a pool of information, not a statement of ESP's views or policies, so no permission is required. Add your knowledge! (See: Help:How to make a good contribution)