Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Supreme Court to Review Century-Old Precedent on Injunctions in Patent Cases
On Nov. 28, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and will review the decision in MercExchange, LLC v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The question presented by the petition was:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in setting forth a general rule in patent cases that a district court must, absent exceptional circumstances, issue a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement.
In granting the petition, the Court also directed the parties to brief and argue the following question:
Whether this Court should reconsider its precedents, including Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, [28 S. Ct. 748, 52 L. Ed. 1122] (1908), on when it is appropriate to grant an injunction against a patent infringer.
MercExchange is the assignee of three patents, U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,845,265 (“the '265 patent”), 6,085,176 (“the '176 patent”), and 6,202,051 (“the '051 patent”), which relate to e-commerce technology. Petitioner eBay Inc. is the owner and operator of a Web site that allows buyers and sellers to exchange goods by participating in live auctions or by purchasing at a fixed price. This case involves the fixed-price purchasing feature of eBay's Web site. The other defendants named in the lawsuit were Half.com, Inc. (a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay) and ReturnBuy, Inc. Prior to trial, ReturnBuy entered into a settlement agreement with MercExchange. At the conclusion of trial, a jury found that eBay had willfully infringed claims 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 26 of the '265 patent and had induced ReturnBuy to infringe claims 1, 4, 7, and 23 of the '265 patent and that Half.com had willfully infringed claims 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-18, 20, 22, and 26-29 of the '265 patent and claims 1, 5-6, 29, 31-32, and 34-39 of the '176 patent. The jury also found that neither the '265 patent nor the '176 patent was invalid. As a result, the jury found eBay liable for $16 million and Half.com liable for $19 million.
Following the verdict, eBay and Half.com moved for judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims were not infringed and were invalid. In the alternative, eBay and Half.com moved for a new trial. eBay also moved to set aside the jury's award of damages for inducing ReturnBuy to infringe the '265 patent ($5.5 million). The district court denied the defendants' JMOL motions and Merc-Exchange's motion for a permanent injunction, but granted eBay's motion to set aside the damages award for inducement of infringement.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?