eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
547 U.S. 388 (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 there is no general rule that an injunction should automatically issue upon a finding of infringement.
Facts:
- MercExchange, L.L.C. held a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate sales between private individuals.
- eBay Inc. and its subsidiary, Half.com, Inc., operated popular internet websites that allowed users to sell goods, either through auction or at a fixed price.
- MercExchange had a history of licensing its patent to other companies and did not commercially practice the patented invention itself.
- MercExchange attempted to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, but the parties were unable to reach a licensing agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- MercExchange sued eBay and Half.com for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (a trial court).
- A jury found MercExchange's patent valid and infringed, and it awarded monetary damages.
- The District Court denied MercExchange's subsequent motion for a permanent injunction to stop eBay and Half.com from using the patented technology.
- 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, applying a general rule that permanent injunctions should issue against patent infringers absent exceptional circumstances.
- eBay and Half.com, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 permanent injunctions apply to patent infringement cases, or should a court follow a general rule of automatically granting an injunction upon a finding of infringement absent exceptional circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. The traditional four-factor test for equitable relief applies to patent cases, and a court should not follow a general rule of automatically granting an injunction. The Patent Act expressly states that injunctions may be granted 'in accordance with the principles of equity,' which does not suggest a departure from the historical four-factor test. The creation of a patent right to exclude is distinct from the available remedies for violating that right. Both the District Court, which adopted a categorical rule against injunctions for patent holders who only license their patents, and the Court of Appeals, which adopted a categorical rule in favor of them, erred by failing to apply the traditional, discretionary equitable framework.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
No. I agree with the Court that the traditional four-factor test applies and discretion rests with the district courts. However, this discretion is not unlimited and should be informed by history. For centuries, courts have granted injunctive relief in the vast majority of patent cases, recognizing the difficulty of protecting the right to exclude with only monetary damages. While this historical practice does not create an automatic rule, it provides a strong basis for how equitable discretion should typically be exercised in patent cases to ensure that 'like cases should be decided alike.'
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
No. I agree that the well-established, four-factor test must be applied without resort to categorical rules. The historical practice of granting injunctions reflects the application of this test to the economic circumstances of past eras. However, modern economic realities, such as the rise of firms that use patents not to produce goods but primarily to obtain licensing fees, present new considerations. In cases where an injunction is sought merely as a bargaining tool for 'exorbitant fees' over a minor component of a complex product, legal damages may be sufficient and an injunction may not serve the public interest. Courts must adapt their application of the equitable test to these evolving circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant shift in patent law by abolishing the Federal Circuit's long-standing rule of nearly automatic permanent injunctions for prevailing patent holders. By reaffirming the district court's equitable discretion, the ruling made it more difficult for patent holders, particularly non-practicing entities (NPEs), to obtain injunctions. This reduces the leverage NPEs have in licensing negotiations, as they can no longer easily threaten to shut down an infringer's entire business operation. The case has led to more nuanced, fact-specific inquiries into whether monetary damages are an adequate remedy in patent disputes.
Unlock the full brief for eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.