« Phillips Analysis, Part 2: What Happened to the Judges? | Main | Good New Obviousness Paper »
eBay v. MercExchange: A Victory for Patent Lawyers (and a loss for everyone else)
May 15, 2006
The Court unanimously holds that the traditional four factors for equitable relief apply, and that categorical rules (either in favor or against injunctions) are inconsistent with this approach. Other than this, the majority opinion is largely content-free, and just 5 pp long.
There are two concurring opinions, which provide some interest: in one, Roberts (with Ginsberg and Scalia) notes the importance of precedent and historical patterns in granting injunctions. In the other, Kennedy (with Stevens, Souter & Breyer) seems to suggest that district courts should take account of certain current aspects of the patent system, such as (a) the emergence of patent licensing firms; (b) the potential for injunctions where patented aspects are a small component of the overall product; and (c) business method patents.
I read the Roberts concurrence as suggesting that district courts should almost always issue injunctions. The Kennedy concurrence suggests that district courts should be more reluctant, at least in some cases. Thomas and Alito, who join only the majority, stick to the basic four factors, nothing more.
It's not clear what effect this will have. Obviously, the Fed Cir's 'general rule' jurisprudence is gone. But by the same token, any reluctance to issue injunctions based on "categorical" concerns is also impermissible. So in a way, the small bits of guidance provided by both concurring opinions is inconsistent with the majority opinion.
As has so often been the case in patent law recently, the only clear winners are the patent lawyers -- who are now able to exhaustively litigate injunctive relief in even the most mundane case.
