Document: 547 U.S. 388 (2006) EBAY INC. et al. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. C. No. 05-130. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 29, 2006. Decided May 15, Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners. With him on briefs were Richard D. Bernstein, Virginia A. Seitz, and Allan M. Soobert. *389 Jeffrey P. Minear States as amicus curiae in support respondent. brief Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Barnett, Acting Katsas, Deputy Hungar, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, David Seidman, Mark R. Freeman, John Whealan, Cynthia Lynch, Heather F. Auyang. Seth Waxman Paul Q. Wolfson, Scott Robertson, Gregory N. Stillman, Jennifer Albert, Young, Brian Buroker.[*] *390 JUSTICE THOMAS delivered opinion Court. Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief prevailing plaintiff applies four-factor test historically employed by courts equity. Petitioners eBay Inc. Half.com, Inc., argue that this traditional disputes arising under Patent Act. We agree and, accordingly, vacate judgment Appeals. I Petitioner operates popular Internet Web site allows private sellers list goods they wish sell, either through an auction or at fixed price. now wholly owned subsidiary eBay, similar site. Respondent MercExchange, C., holds number patents, including business method patent electronic market designed facilitate sale between individuals establishing central authority promote trust among participants. See U. S. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought license its it had previously done with other companies, but parties failed reach agreement. subsequently filed infringement suit against Half.com District Eastern Virginia. A jury found *391 MercExchange's was valid, infringed patent, damages appropriate.[1] Following verdict, denied motion relief. 275 Supp. 2d 695 (2003). The Appeals Federal Circuit reversed, applying "general rule will issue injunctions absent exceptional circumstances." 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005). granted certiorari determine appropriateness general rule. 546 1029 II According well-established principles equity, seeking injunction must satisfy before may grant such demonstrate: (1) has suffered irreparable injury; (2) remedies available law, monetary damages, are inadequate compensate (3) that, balance hardships defendant, remedy equity is warranted; (4) public interest would not be disserved injunction. See, e. g., Weinberger Romero-Barcelo, 456 305, 311-313 (1982); Amoco Production Co. Gambell, 480 531, 542 (1987). decision deny act equitable discretion district court, reviewable appeal abuse discretion. S., 320. These familiar apply equal force As long recognized, "a major departure from tradition practice should lightly implied." Ibid.; see also Amoco, supra, 542. Nothing Act indicates *392 Congress intended departure. To contrary, expressly provides "may" "in accordance equity." 35 § 283.[2] sure, declares "patents shall have attributes personal property," 261, "the right exclude others making, using, offering sale, selling invention," 154(a)(1). Appeals, statutory alone justifies favor F.3d, 1338. But creation distinct provision violations right. Indeed, itself patents property "[s]ubject provisions title," including, presumably, only equity," 283. This approach consistent our treatment Copyright Like owner, copyright holder possesses using his property." Fox Film Corp. Doyal, 286 123, 127 (1932); id., 127-128 ("A copyright, like once equivalent given benefits bestowed genius meditations skill incentive further efforts same important objects" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Act, "on terms deem reasonable prevent restrain copyright." 17 502(a). And today, consistently rejected invitations replace considerations automatically *393 follows determination been infringed. New York Times Tasini, 533 483, 505 (2001) (citing Campbell Acuff-Rose Music, 510 569, 578, n. 10 (1994)); Dun Lumbermen's Credit Assn., 209 20, 23-24 (1908). Neither nor below fairly applied these deciding respondent's Although recited test, 2d, 711, appeared adopt certain expansive suggesting could broad swath cases. Most notably, concluded "plaintiff's willingness patents" "its lack commercial activity practicing sufficient establish suffer harm if did issue. Id., 712. do permit classifications. For example, some holders, university researchers self-made inventors, might reasonably prefer their rather than undertake secure financing necessary bring works themselves. Such holders able we no basis categorically denying them opportunity so. extent adopted categorical rule, then, analysis cannot squared Congress. court's tension Continental Paper Bag Co., 210 405, 422-430 (1908), which contention jurisdiction who unreasonably declined use patent. In reversing Court, departed opposite direction test. articulated rule," unique disputes, "that *394 validity adjudged." indicated "unusual" case, "exceptional circumstances" "`in rare instances . protect interest.'" 1338-1339. Just erred denial relief, Cf. Roche Products, Bolar Pharmaceutical 733 F.2d 858, 865 (CA Fed. 1984) (recognizing "considerable discretion" determining facts situation require injunction"). Because conclude neither correctly framework governs so first instance. doing so, take position particular indeed any hold rests within courts, exercised less cases governed standards. Accordingly, remand case proceedings opinion. It ordered. CHIEF ROBERTS, whom SCALIA GINSBURG join, concurring. Court's holding *395 standards," ante, 394, join That rightly proposition 320 391. From least early 19th century, upon finding vast majority "long practice" surprising, difficulty protecting allow infringer invention patentee's wishes often implicates two factors historical practice, holds, does entitle patentee justify recognized 865-867 (1984). At time, there difference exercising pursuant established writing entirely clean slate. "Discretion whim, limiting according legal standards helps basic principle justice decided alike." Martin Franklin Capital Corp., 132, 139 When comes discerning those standards, area others, page history worth volume logic." Trust Eisner, 256 345, 349 (1921) (opinion Holmes, J.). KENNEDY, STEVENS, SOUTER, BREYER correct, my view, well-established, testwithout resort rulesin Chief Justice correct *396 instructive Ante, 395 (concurring opinion). issuing infringers, however, seem rest wishes." Ibid. (Roberts, J., concurring). Both view accept existence dictate violation 391-392 Court). earlier pattern granting infringers almost matter course, simply illustrates result fourfactor contexts then prevalent. lesson therefore, most helpful when circumstances bear substantial parallels litigation confronted before. trial mind many nature being enforced economic function present quite unlike An industry developed firms producing but, instead, primarily obtaining licensing fees. FTC, Promote Innovation: Proper Balance Competition Law Policy, ch. 3, pp. 38-39 (Oct. 2003), http://www.ftc.gov/ os/2003/10/innovationrpt.pdf (as visited 11, 2006, Clerk file). firms, injunction, potentially serious sanctions violation, can bargaining tool charge exorbitant fees companies seek buy licenses ibid. patented small component product produce threat undue leverage negotiations, well *397 serve interest. addition different consequences burgeoning over methods, much significance times. potential vagueness suspect affect calculus injunctions, suited adapt rapid technological developments system. reasons past fits them. observations, NOTES [*] Briefs amici urging reversal American Innovators' Alliance Theodore B. Olson Matthew McGill; Association Bar City James W. Dabney Peter Sullivan; Business Software Kenneth Geller Andrew Pincus; Computer & Communications Industry Jonathan Band; Electronic Frontier Foundation Jason Schultz; Nokia Michael Kenny; Research Motion, Ltd., Glick, Sarah King, Herbert Fenster, Lawrence Ebner, Henry Bunsow, Long, Whitaker; Securities Hardy Callcott Whiting; Time Warner Kathleen Sullivan, Daniel H. Bromberg, Margret Caruso; Yahoo! Christopher Wright, Timothy Simeone, Lisa McFall; Malla Pollack Ms. Pollack, pro se. affirmance Greco, Robert Altherr, Jr., Nina Medlock, Joseph Potenza; Biotechnology Organization Nancy Linck Barrett; Electric Englander, Downs, Kevin Martin, William Sheehan; Professors Thomas Field, Craig Jepson, Karl Jorda, all se; Manufacturers America Harry Roper, Aaron Barlow, Smith, Katherine Fallow; Qualcomm Bass III, Sterne, Edward Kessler, Linda E. Horner; Rembrandt IP Management, LLC, Robbins Roy T. Englert, Jr.; Technology, Patents Licensing, Keara Bergin; Inventors Asher Erik Belt; Various Economics Kieff Epstein, both Wisconsin Alumni Gary Hoffman Woody Peterson; Cooper Justin Nelson, Parker Folse Stephen Susman, Wawro, Max Tribble, Steven Hoffberg Rando Mr. Hoffberg, Intellectual Property Cianfrani, Melvin Garner, Martha Schneider; Universities Morgan Chu Laura Brill; International Machines Hughes Abate; Patent, Trademark Section Columbia Blair Taylor Susan Dadio; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Galbraith Elizabeth Holland; 52 Lemley, [1] EBay continue challenge Merc-Exchange's pending Office. [2] 283 "[t]he several having title secured deems reasonable."

Category: 7