Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/05-130.pdf
Page Number: 7

Cite as:  547 U. S. ____ (2006) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

with  the  principles  of  equity  adopted  by  Congress.    The 
court’s categorical rule is also in tension with Continental 
Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U. S. 405, 422– 
430  (1908),  which  rejected  the  contention  that  a  court  of
equity  has  no  jurisdiction  to  grant  injunctive  relief  to  a 
patent  holder  who  has  unreasonably  declined  to  use  the 
patent.

In  reversing  the  District  Court,  the  Court  of  Appeals
departed  in  the  opposite  direction  from  the  four-factor 
test.  The  court  articulated  a  “general  rule,”  unique  to 
patent  disputes,  “that  a  permanent  injunction  will  issue 
once infringement and validity have been adjudged.”  401 
F. 3d,  at  1338.  The  court  further  indicated  that  injunc-
tions  should  be  denied  only  in  the  “unusual”  case,  under 
“exceptional circumstances” and “ ‘in rare instances . . . to
protect  the  public  interest.’ ”    Id.,  at  1338–1339.    Just  as 
the District Court erred in its categorical denial of injunc-
tive  relief,  the  Court  of  Appeals  erred  in  its  categorical
grant of such relief.  Cf. Roche Products v. Bolar Pharma-
ceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865 (CAFed 1984) (recognizing
the  “considerable  discretion”  district  courts  have  “in  de-
termining  whether  the  facts  of  a  situation  require  it  to 
issue an injunction”). 

Because  we  conclude  that  neither  court  below  correctly
applied the traditional four-factor framework that governs 
the  award  of  injunctive  relief,  we  vacate  the  judgment  of 
the Court of Appeals, so that the District Court may apply 
that framework in the first instance.  In doing so, we take
no position on whether permanent injunctive relief should
or should not issue in this particular case, or indeed in any 
number  of  other  disputes  arising  under  the  Patent  Act. 
We  hold  only  that  the  decision  whether  to  grant  or  deny 
injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the
district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised 
consistent  with  traditional  principles  of  equity,  in  patent
disputes  no  less  than  in  other  cases  governed  by  such 
standards.