Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1802864/EFF-ebay-reply-brief
Timestamp: 2019-11-13 20:53:28
Document Index: 238943964

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 480', '§ 217', '§ 1116', '§ 502', '§ 283', '§ 307', '§ 283', '§ 283', '§ 283', '§ 283', '§ 283', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 502', '§ 283', '§ 283', '§ 1116', '§ 283', '§ 283', '§ 502', '§ 283', '§ 283', '§ 115', '§ 283', '§ 307']

EFF: ebay reply brief | Injunction | Equity (Law)
EFF: ebay reply brief
saveSave EFF: ebay reply brief For Later
EBAY INC. AND HALF.COM., INC.,
MERCEXCHANGE, L.L.C.,
ALLAN M. SOOBERT CARTER G. PHILLIPS*
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN &
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP WOOD LLP
1440 New York Avenue 1501 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 371-7000 (202) 736-8000
JEFFREY G. RANDALL JAY MONAHAN
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, EBAY INC.
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 2145 Hamilton Avenue
525 University Avenue San Jose, California 95125
Suite 1100 (408) 376-7400
October 11, 2005 * Counsel of Record
REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER .................................. 1
CONCLUSION................................................................ 10
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480
U.S. 531 (1987).................................................... 2, 6
Burndy Corp. v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d
767 (2d Cir. 1984)................................................ 8
Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210
U.S. 405 (1908).................................................. 1, 3, 4
Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Mach.
Works, 261 U.S. 24 (1923) .................................. 4
Foster v. Am. Mach. & Foundry Co., 492 F.2d
1317 (2d Cir. 1974).............................................. 3, 8
Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981) ......................... 7
Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321 (1944) ............. 2, 6
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., 2005 WL
2139867 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2005)........................ 5
N.Y. Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001) ....... 7
Nerney v. N.Y., New Haven & Hartford R.R., 83
F.2d 409 (2d Cir. 1936) ....................................... 3
People of Vill. of Gambell v. Hodel, 774 F.2d
1414 (9th Cir. 1985), rev’d in part, vacated in
part, 480 U.S. 531 (1987) .................................... 6
Roche Prods., Inc. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., 733 F.2d
858 (Fed. Cir. 1984), superceded on other
grounds, 35 U.S.C. § 217(e), as recognized in
W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 977
F.2d 558 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .................................... 5
Silverstein v. Penguin Putnam, Inc., 368 F.3d 77
(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 815 (2004) ...... 7
Smith Int’l, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d
1573 (Fed. Cir. 1983)........................................... 4, 5
Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus.,
Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ................... 10
Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) ................................. 2, 6
(1982).............................................................. 2, 4, 6, 8
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395
U.S. 100 (1969).................................................... 4
Act of Feb. 15, 1819, ch. 19, 3 Stat. 481 ................. 3
15 U.S.C. § 1116(a)................................................. 7
17 U.S.C. § 502 ....................................................... 7
35 U.S.C. § 283 ....................................................... 1, 3
§ 307(a)................................................... 10
Legislative Hearing on the “Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2795, the ‘Patent
Act of 2005,’” before the Subcomm. on Courts,
the Internet, & Intellectual Prop. of the H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. (2005),
available at http://judiciary.house.gov/media/
pdfs/thomas091505.pdf........................................ 10
20 Charles A. Wright & Mary K. Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure (2002) ........................... 8
In their petition, eBay Inc. and Half.com, Inc. (“eBay”)
have demonstrated that the Federal Circuit’s holding in this
case sets out, with a minor exception for public health risks,
an irrebuttable presumption that a permanent injunction
should follow a finding of patent infringement. This restric-
tion on the traditional equitable powers of a district court
flouts both the plain language of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.
§ 283, and this Court’s unmistakable instruction that only
Congress, and not a court of appeals, can limit the equitable
discretion of the lower courts. In believing that the Federal
Circuit’s error of law presents an exceptionally strong case
for this Court’s review, eBay is joined by numerous amici,
including the nation’s leading intellectual property professors
and a host of affected companies in the technology, manufac-
turing, energy, and financial services sectors. Those submis-
sions alone warrant this Court’s review of the important
holding below in this case.
The opposition briefs filed by Respondent MercExchange,
L.L.C. (“MercExchange”) and its amici do not offer a single
reason to doubt the need for this Court’s review. First, there
is no merit to MercExchange’s contention that Continental
Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405
(1908), decided the issue presented. That decision merely
holds what eBay has never denied: that a patent offers a right
to exclude and that the traditional remedy for the prevention
of future patent infringement is an injunction. But, the
question presented by this petition pertains not to whether a
post-infringement injunction is ever appropriate—it typically
is—but whether, as the Federal Circuit has commanded, an
injunction must follow automatically without consideration of
the traditional prerequisites for the grant of equitable relief.
None of the cases cited by MercExchange, including Conti-
nental Paper Bag, justifies the Federal Circuit’s rule that
departs from the language of the statute.
Second, MercExchange contends that the Federal Circuit
leaves district courts with the discretion required by § 283
because it permits denying permanent injunctions in excep-
tional circumstances. But, as this Court has held, tolerating
the denial of injunctive relief only in such “rare instances”
would render “discretion” a meaningless concept. App. 26a;
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531,
544 (1987).
Third, eBay’s petition identified a series of this Court’s
decisions admonishing courts of appeals not to limit equitable
discretion absent clear Congressional intent. Pet. 19-22;
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S.
483, 496 (2001); Amoco Prod., 480 U.S. at 544; Weinberger
v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311-13 (1982); Hecht Co.
v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329-30 (1944). MercExchange
contends that these decisions have no force with respect to
property rights such as patents. This view is mistaken. This
Court and various other courts of appeals have interpreted
similar intellectual property statutes as barring precisely the
per se approach the Federal Circuit has adopted with respect
Fourth, MercExchange argues that disturbing the Federal
Circuit’s rule will have disastrous consequences for the patent
system. This argument rests on the fiction that eBay seeks to
deny patentees access to injunctive relief. Ultimately, how-
ever, eBay, along with numerous amici supporting the peti-
tion, have shown that dismantling the Federal Circuit’s
automatic rule will strengthen the patent system and the
Given the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over
patent disputes, this Court’s review is necessary to correct this
misconstruction of the Patent Act and its unwarranted limita-
tion on equity.
1. MercExchange, along with its amici, which apparently
recognize the importance of the issue, argue that Continental
Paper Bag justifies the Federal Circuit’s special rule for
patent injunctions. Opp. 8, 16-19; Qualcomm Br. 7. MercEx-
change and its amici, however, read far too much into the
From the character of the right of the patentee we may
judge of his remedies. It hardly needs to be pointed out
that the right can only retain its attribute of exclusive-
ness by a prevention of its violation. Anything but pre-
vention takes away the privilege which the law confers
upon the patentee.
Cont’l Paper Bag, 210 U.S. at 430.
In Continental Paper Bag, the petitioner sought to deny
injunctive relief to patentees on the theory that they were
unreasonably refusing to allow their inventions to be used. In
rejecting this argument, this Court noted that patentees,
including those that did not practice their inventions, enjoyed
not only a “right to exclude” others from use of the invention,
but also they had available to them the injunctive powers of
the equity courts to safeguard that right. Id. at 425.
Yet, the right to exclude that inheres in a patent does not
justify a mandatory injunction rule.1 Patent holders enjoyed
their right to exclude for nearly 30 years before Congress
added an injunctive relief provision to the Patent Act. Act of
Feb. 15, 1819, ch. 19, 3 Stat. 481, 481-82. In doing so,
Congress readily could have chosen to make injunctive relief
mandatory. Congress instead chose to attach the condition
that injunctions should issue only “according to the course
and principles of courts of equity.” Id. at 481; see also 35
U.S.C. § 283 (“in accordance with the principles of equity”).
MercExchange’s reliance on the right to exclude is ironic given the
district court’s factual finding that MercExchange clearly expressed its
intention not to exclude, but to license its patent for a fee. App. 54a.
When “it is recognized that the only real advantage to a plaintiff in
granting the injunction would be to strengthen its position in negotiating a
settlement, an injunction should not issue.” Nerney v. N.Y., New Haven &
Hartford R.R., 83 F.2d 409, 411 (2d Cir. 1936); Foster v. Am. Mach. &
Foundry Co., 492 F.2d 1317, 1324 (2d Cir. 1974).
Thus, all that Continental Paper Bag holds is that injunctive
relief is a critical means by which a patentee can protect its
right to exclude.
But the decision also strongly suggests that, consistent with
§ 283, courts must consider the ordinary rules of equity
before granting an injunction. In the very same passage relied
upon by MercExchange and its amici, this Court tied the
availability of a patent injunction to the “well-recognized
grounds of equity jurisdiction,” which included such grounds
as multiple “trespasses and continuing wrongs and the vexa-
tion of many actions.” Cont’l Paper Bag, 210 U.S. at 430.
Further, the Court observed that, while an injunction could
not be categorically denied to non-using patentees,
“[w]hether, however, a case cannot arise where, regarding the
situation of the parties in view of the public interest, a court
of equity might be justified in withholding relief by injunction
we do not decide.” Id. (emphasis added). This formulation
directs courts to consider both the interests of parties and the
public and sums up the traditional four-factor test for equita-
ble relief: irreparable injury; inadequacy of legal remedies;
balancing of parties’ hardships; and, whether an injunction
would adversely affect the public interest. Romero-Barcelo,
456 U.S. at 312-13. By contrast, the Federal Circuit’s rule
mandates an injunction, irrespective of the situation of the
parties, and permits an exception only “‘in order to protect the
public interest.’” App. 26a.
Accordingly, Continental Paper Bag hardly creates a
wooden presumption in favor of injunctions, much less an
irrebuttable one.2
Nor do this Court’s decisions support MercExchange’s wishful read-
ing. In both Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, 395 U.S. 100, 135
(1969), and Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Mach. Works, 261 U.S.
24, 34-35 (1923), this Court only cited Continental Paper Bag for the
uncontroversial holding that a patent confers a legal monopoly with a right
to exclude others from making or using the invention. This Court has
never suggested that there is a mandatory rule for injunctions. Moreover,
in Smith International, Inc. v. Hughes Tool Co., 718 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir.
2. MercExchange concedes that § 283 vests discretion in
district courts to grant injunctive relief according to equitable
principles. Opp. 21 n.9. However, it contends that the
Federal Circuit already provides that discretion to the district
courts. Id. at 8-9. But, the Federal Circuit’s narrow excep-
tion to its per se rule, where a court can deny an injunction
that would adversely affect the public interest, is not a mean-
ingful exercise of equitable discretion.
At the outset, MercExchange’s view that the Federal Cir-
cuit’s mandatory injunction rule has been “consistently
recognized” by that court is flatly wrong. Id. at 19. In its
early days, the Federal Circuit held that injunctions should
only issue according to “historic equity principles.” Roche
Prods., Inc. v. Bolar Pharm. Co., 733 F.2d 858, 867 (Fed.
Cir. 1984), superseded on other grounds by statute, 35 U.S.C.
§ 271(e), as recognized in W.L. Gore & Assocs. v. C.R. Bard,
Inc., 977 F.2d 558 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The court based its
conclusion on the nonmandatory language of § 283 and this
Court’s admonition against curbing equitable discretion
absent a clear textual warrant. Id. at 865-66 (citing Hecht,
321 U.S. at 321). Over the years, however, the Federal
Circuit’s doctrine on patent injunctions has evolved into an
unyielding rule, unmoored from the text and decisions of this
Court. Now, “‘the general rule is that a permanent injunction
will issue once infringement and validity have been ad-
judged’” except when denying an injunction is necessary to
protect the public interest. See, e.g., Mallinckrodt, Inc. v.
Masimo Corp., 2005 WL 2139867, at *17 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7,
2005) (reversing a district court’s denial of a permanent
injunction and citing MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401
F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
1983), the Federal Circuit cited to Continental Paper Bag with respect to
injunctive relief, and yet expressly instructed district courts to employ
traditional equitable analysis before issuing an injunction. Id. at 1579
(noting that “the trial court should balance the requisite [equitable]
factors.”).
MercExchange attempts to characterize the narrow “public
interest” exception to the Federal Circuit’s per se rule as
embodying the exercise of equitable discretion. Opp. 8-9, 19-
23. MercExchange is wrong. Indeed, this Court has struck
down a strikingly similar rule as an undue restriction on a
court’s equitable discretion. The Ninth Circuit had held that
“injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy for a violation of
an environmental statute absent rare or unusual circum-
stances.” People of Vill. of Gambell v. Hodel, 774 F.2d 1414,
1423 (9th Cir. 1985). The exception for “rare or unusual
circumstances” did not prevent this Court from rejecting the
court of appeals’ rule as an unwarranted limitation on a
federal court’s traditional equitable discretion. Amoco Prod.,
480 U.S. at 541. Likewise, here, the “public interest” excep-
tion, which the Federal Circuit has itself described as “rare,”
is a plainly insufficient substitute for equitable discretion.
App. 26a (“‘courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to deny injunctive relief in order to protect the pub-
lic interest’”). The Federal Circuit has therefore restricted the
courts’ equitable discretion in stark violation of this Court’s
precedents. Oakland Cannabis, 532 U.S. at 496; Romero-
Barcelo, 456 U.S. at 305; Hecht Co., 321 U.S. at 321.
3. MercExchange’s attempts to avoid the effect of these
decisions should be rejected. First, MercExchange states that
eBay has cited to these cases “for the unremarkable proposi-
tion that Congress may legislate remedial schemes that permit
courts to exercise equitable discretion.” Opp. 21 n.9. That is
not the holding of these cases and that is not what eBay
argued. As discussed in the petition, these decisions hold that
a court of appeals cannot limit the equitable discretion of a
federal court in favor of a per se rule, absent a Congressional
mandate. Those cases are on point and undermine the Federal
Circuit’s rule.
Second, MercExchange contends that those cases “dealt
only with statutes addressed to policies of general public
concern, not a personal property right.” Id. at 22 n.9. This is
a meaningless distinction. Copyrights, which like patents
confer a property right—including the right to exclude—are
subject to a similarly worded injunctive relief provision. 17
U.S.C. § 502 (a court “may” enjoin infringement). And, in
contrast to the Federal Circuit’s misreading of § 283, this
Court has interpreted this discretionary language in the
Copyright Act to mean that injunctive relief need not issue as
a matter of course after a finding of a violation. N.Y. Times
Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483, 505 (2001) (citing Campbell v.
Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578, n.10 (1994)).3
In addition to the Copyright Act, the Lanham Act also con-
tains an injunctive relief provision for trademark violations
that echoes the language contained in § 283. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1116(a) (“power to grant injunctions, according to the
principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may
deem reasonable”). Various courts of appeals have inter-
preted both of these analogous intellectual property provi-
sions to vest a district court with equitable discretion. Injunc-
tions, these courts have held, are not the automatic result of
infringement; instead, the relief is conditioned upon a thor-
ough consideration of the traditional equitable factors, includ-
ing continuing infringement.4 See Silverstein v. Penguin
MercExchange’s attempt to torture the plain language of § 283 should
likewise be rejected. MercExchange contends that the Congress’ use of
“may” in § 283, as opposed to “shall,” means something different in the
context of the Patent Act because a patent involves the “right to exclude.”
Opp. 22 n.9. Tellingly, MercExchange adverts to no cases that support its
newly minted canon of construction. This Court certainly has not created
a property law exception to the ordinary rule of statutory interpretation
that “‘may’ expressly recognizes substantial discretion.” Haig v. Agee,
453 U.S. 280, 295 n.26 (1981).
MercExchange acknowledges that the Federal Circuit’s rule differs
from these cases, including the absence of a continuing infringement
requirement. But it contends that this distinction is “wholly irrelevant to
this case” because it alleges Petitioners have “continued their willful
infringement unabated since trial.” Opp. 26. eBay denies this unsup-
ported allegation. Moreover, MercExchange cannot make up for the lapse
in the Federal Circuit’s general rule by having this Court make a factual
Putnam, Inc., 368 F.3d 77, 84 (2d Cir.) (denying injunctive
relief and holding that under the Copyright Act § 502 “injunc-
tive relief to enforce a copyright is not compelled”), cert.
denied, 125 S. Ct. 815 (2004); Burndy Corp. v. Teledyne
Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 1984) (permanent
injunctions will be granted “only upon proof of the likelihood
that purchasers of the product may be misled in the future”)
(Lanham Act). These decisions not only conflict in principle
with the decision announced below, they indicate that but for
the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction to hear patent
appeals, a patent defendant would not labor under such a
mandatory injunction rule. See Foster v. Am. Mach. &
Foundry Co., 492 F.2d 1317, 1324 (2d Cir. 1974) (the Second
Circuit interpreting § 283 to hold that “[a]n injunction to
protect a patent against infringement, like any other injunc-
tion, is an equitable remedy to be determined under the
MercExchange tries to minimize the import of these cases
by noting that “courts typically provide permanent injunctive
relief in trademark and copyright cases upon a finding of
infringement, just as in patent cases.” Opp. 24. This asser-
tion may be true, but it is beside the point.
eBay readily concedes that if the Federal Circuit’s rule
were lifted, the traditional prerequisites for injunctive relief
would often be met. Pet. 26. But there clearly are instances,
such as this case, when the per se rule would dictate that an
injunction should issue, even when the equities of a particular
case counsel otherwise. Here, after carefully weighing the
facts and noting the “atypical” and “highly unusual” nature of
this case, the district court correctly declined to grant an
injunction. App. 52-59a. The district court thus was faithful
to the letter and the spirit of § 283. This is because in obligat-
ing courts to employ equitable principles, Congress demanded
finding based on its bald assertion. Axiomatically, “[t]he Supreme Court
ordinarily does not sit to decide questions of fact.” 20 Charles A. Wright
& Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 115, at 1083 (2002).
case-specific consideration. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. at
312 (“[t]he essence of equity jurisdiction has been the
power … to mould each decree to the necessities of the
particular case.”).
4. In its petition, eBay explained why the Federal Circuit’s
per se rule imposes tremendous costs to the Nation’s econ-
omy. That view has now been echoed by numerous amici
who have written in support of certiorari. However, MercEx-
change asserts that disturbing the Federal Circuit’s general
rule would lead to calamitous results. But it arrives at this
conclusion by arguing against a petition of its own invention:
one which seeks categorically to deny injunctions to patent-
ees; to establish a compulsory licensing system; and, to
eliminate a patentee’s right to exclude others from use of the
patent. Opp. 5, 28-29.
eBay’s petition, neither expressly nor impliedly, seeks these
changes to the patent system. Nor would eBay and its several
amici, as holders of valuable patents, seek to undermine
patent protection. Rather, eBay has sought this Court’s
review of the Federal Circuit’s misconstruction of § 283.
Reclaiming the role of equitable discretion in patent injunc-
tions would undoubtedly benefit the significantly expanding
patent system, and would aid district courts as they confront
the challenges posed by ill-defined patents and claims brought
by patent assertion companies. The sky would assuredly not
fall on patentees.
In any event, both MercExchange and eBay argue on this
common ground: the debate over the proper rule concerning
the grant of patent injunctions implicates vital aspects of the
patent system. Thus, this Court should grant review to settle
this question of exceptional importance to the nation’s
economy that prompted amici on both sides to expend valu-
able resources in briefing the issue in this case.
5. Finally, amici in support of MercExchange advance two
arguments that can be easily dismissed. First, they argue that
this Court should refrain from reviewing this case because
“th[is] issue is actively under consideration by the Legislative
Branch.” Qualcomm Br. 12. This is false. Congress is
considering changes to the patent system, but the pending
legislative proposal does not implicate the injunctive relief
provision of the Patent Act. Legislative Hearing on the
“Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2795, the
‘Patent Act of 2005,’” before the Subcomm. on Courts, the
Internet, & Intellectual Prop. of the H. Comm. on the Judici-
ary, 109th Cong. (2005) (statement of John R. Thomas,
Georgetown University), available at http://judiciary.house.
gov/media/pdfs/thomas091505.pdf, at 5. The changes con-
templated by the various subcommittees will have no affect
on this litigation.
Second, amici on behalf of MercExchange argue that the
Patent and Trademark Office’s reexamination proceedings
serve as a basis for denying this petition. But amici them-
selves acknowledge that “the administrative proceedings have
not reached the stage of a final determination of invalidity.”
Qualcomm Br. 13. Arriving at this final stage is a lengthy
process. As noted in eBay’s petition, a determination by the
PTO during reexamination will not be a final adjudication on
patent validity until any appeal, to the Federal Circuit directly
or to the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, has been concluded. 35 U.S.C. § 307(a); Standard
Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360,
1366 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Thus, not only is the result of the
reexamination uncertain, the determination will only have
effect sometime in the future. In the meantime, absent review
and reversal by this Court, eBay will be subject to an unfair
and unwise injunction that does violence to the plain language
of Section 283.
For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stated in the
petition for certiorari, the petition should be granted.
Documents Similar To EFF: ebay reply brief
Popular in United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit