Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/Legal_Issues/66942081-Supreme-court-of-the-united-states.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 10:57:53+00:00

Document:
2 2 EBAY INC. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against ebay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found that MercExchange s patent was valid, that ebay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate. 1 Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange s motion for permanent injunctive relief. 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances. 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339 (2005). We granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule. 546 U. S (2005). II According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must 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 permanent injunction. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 542 (1987). The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Romero- 1 EBay and Half.com continue to challenge the validity of MercExchange s patent in proceedings pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
3 Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 3 Barcelo, 456 U. S., at 320. These familiar principles apply with equal force to disputes arising under the Patent Act. As this Court has long recognized, a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied. Ibid.; see also Amoco, supra, at 542. Nothing in the Patent Act indicates that Congress intended such a departure. To the contrary, the Patent Act expressly provides that injunctions may issue in accordance with the principles of equity. 35 U. S. C To be sure, the Patent Act also declares that patents shall have the attributes of personal property, 261, including the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention, 154(a)(1). According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. 401 F. 3d, at But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right. Indeed, the Patent Act itself indicates that patents shall have the attributes of personal property [s]ubject to the provisions of this title, 35 U. S. C. 261, including, presumably, the provision that injunctive relief may issue only in accordance with the principles of equity, 283. This approach is consistent with our treatment of injunctions under the Copyright Act. Like a patent owner, a copyright holder possesses the right to exclude others from using his property. Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127 (1932); see also id., at ( A copyright, like a patent, is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestowed by the genius and meditations 2 Section 283 provides that [t]he several courts having jurisdiction of cases under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable.
5 Cite as: 547 U. S. (2006) 5 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, (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 The court further indicated that injunctions should be denied only in the unusual case, under exceptional circumstances and in rare instances... to protect the public interest. Id., at Just as the District Court erred in its categorical denial of injunctive relief, the Court of Appeals erred in its categorical grant of such relief. Cf. Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865 (CAFed 1984) (recognizing the considerable discretion district courts have in determining 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.
6 6 EBAY INC. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: January 18, 2012 Decided: September 14, 2012) Docket No.
Robin M. Davis* BROKEN PATENT SYSTEM IS ENDANGERING INNOVATION AND PROGRESS, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT 15 (2004).
THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM: OBTAINING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN BID PROTEST CASES BEFORE THE U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS. By Matthew H.
Case :-cv-0-mce-ac Document Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FIREARMS POLICY COALITION SECOND AMENDMENT DEFENSE COMMITTEE, et al., v. Plaintiffs, KAMALA D.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CANCER RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED AND SCHERING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. AND BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.