eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
547 U.S. 388, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction in a patent infringement case must satisfy the traditional four-factor test for equitable relief. The decision to grant or deny an injunction rests within the equitable discretion of the district court and is not automatic upon a finding of infringement.
Facts:
- MercExchange, L.L.C. holds a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals.
- eBay Inc. and its subsidiary, Half.com, operate popular internet websites that allow private sellers to list goods for sale at auction or a fixed price.
- MercExchange did not commercially practice its own patent but had licensed it to other companies.
- MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, but the parties failed to reach a licensing agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- MercExchange filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- A jury at the trial court level found that MercExchange's patent was valid and that eBay and Half.com had infringed it, awarding monetary damages.
- Following the verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange's motion for a permanent injunction.
- MercExchange, as appellant, appealed the denial of the injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that a permanent injunction should generally issue absent exceptional circumstances.
- eBay and Half.com, as petitioners, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the traditional four-factor test for granting a permanent injunction apply to cases arising under the Patent Act, or is a prevailing patent holder generally entitled to an injunction absent exceptional circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. A prevailing patent holder is not generally entitled to an injunction absent exceptional circumstances; the traditional four-factor test for granting a permanent injunction applies to cases arising under the Patent Act. The Patent Act expressly states that injunctions 'may' be granted 'in accordance with the principles of equity,' which indicates Congress did not intend to depart from the traditional four-factor test. The creation of a patent right to exclude is distinct from the remedies available for a violation of that right. Both the District Court, by categorically denying relief based on the patentee's status as a non-practicing licensor, and the Court of Appeals, by categorically granting relief, erred by failing to apply the traditional discretionary framework.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
I agree that the four-factor test applies. However, the historical practice of granting injunctions in the vast majority of patent cases should inform district courts' discretion. The difficulty of protecting a right to exclude with only monetary remedies often satisfies the first two factors of the test (irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies), which explains this long tradition. While not an entitlement, this history provides a valuable guide for applying the equitable test, ensuring that 'like cases should be decided alike.'
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
I agree that the four-factor test is the correct standard. However, courts must recognize that the modern patent landscape presents new considerations. The rise of non-practicing entities (NPEs), who use patents primarily to obtain licensing fees rather than to produce goods, changes the equitable calculus. For these firms, an injunction can be a tool for undue leverage to charge exorbitant fees, especially when the patent covers a small component of a complex product. In such cases, legal damages may be sufficient, and an injunction may not serve the public interest.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered patent litigation by rejecting the Federal Circuit's nearly automatic rule for granting permanent injunctions. It weakened the negotiating leverage of patent holders, particularly non-practicing entities (NPEs), who could no longer reliably threaten to shut down an infringer's operations. The ruling requires a more nuanced, case-by-case analysis, giving district courts greater discretion and harmonizing patent law with traditional principles of equity applied in other areas of law like copyright.
Unlock the full brief for eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.