A divisive issue in the current debates over H.R. 2795, the Patent Reform bill, concerns the standards for granting injunctions against infringing conduct. Many in the tech world want to make injunctions harder to get; the inventor community likes the current rules just fine.

Now the Supreme Court is being asked to preempt the debate. EBay has filed a Petition for Certiorari in eBay v. MercExchange, which raises the precise issue.

Patently-O summarizes:

The Federal Circuit . . . [found] that, absent exceptional circumstances, a district court should issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement.

Now, eBay has [asked]. . . the Supreme Court . . . to hear its case. The petition briefly spells out the traditional four-factor injunctive relief test and argues that the four-factor test should apply to patent cases rather than the de facto per se test applied by the CAFC.

In the four-factor test, the court should consider (i) irreparable harm from not issuing an injunction; (ii) whether an adequate remedy exists in law (damages) (iii) whether the injunction would be in the public interest; and (iv) whether a balance of hardships would tip in the plaintiff’s favor.

eBay argues that the move away from injunction as a per se consequence of infringement does not raise the standard for obtaining injunctive relief -- rather, it is a move back to the standard originally intended by Congress.

posted by James DeLong @ 2:28 PM | Patents

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)