Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/05-130.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2005 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

EBAY INC. ET AL. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

No. 05–130.  Argued March 29, 2006—Decided May 15, 2006 

Petitioners  operate  popular  Internet  Web  sites  that  allow  private  sell-
ers  to  list  goods  they  wish  to  sell.    Respondent  sought  to  license  its 
business  method  patent  to  petitioners,  but  no  agreement  was 
reached.  In respondent’s subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury
found  that  its  patent  was  valid,  that  petitioners  had  infringed  the 
patent,  and  that  damages  were  appropriate.    However,  the  District 
Court denied respondent’s motion for permanent injunctive relief.  In 
reversing,  the  Federal  Circuit  applied  its  “general  rule  that  courts 
will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent 
exceptional circumstances.”  401 F. 3d 1323, 1339.   

Held: The  traditional  four-factor  test  applied  by  courts  of  equity  when
considering  whether  to  award  permanent  injunctive  relief  to  a  pre-
vailing  plaintiff  applies  to  disputes  arising  under  the  Patent  Act.
That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered 
an  irreparable  injury;  (2)  that  remedies  available  at  law  are  inade-
quate 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 permanent injunction.  The decision to grant or deny such relief
is  an  act  of  equitable  discretion  by  the  district  court,  reviewable  on
appeal  for  abuse  of  discretion.  These  principles  apply  with  equal 
force to Patent Act disputes.  “[A] major departure from the long tra-
dition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.”  Weinberger v. 
Romero-Barcelo,  456  U. S.  305,  320.    Nothing  in  the  Act  indicates 
such a departure.  Pp. 2–6. 

401 F. 3d 1323, vacated and remanded. 

THOMAS, J.,  delivered  the  opinion  for  a  unanimous  Court.    ROBERTS,