Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
eBay Inc., et al. v. MercExchange LLC
The Supreme Court's May 15 decision in eBay Inc., et al. v. MercExchange LLC (eBay) is already a landmark in patent law. The unanimous Court rejected the general rule, previously applied by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, that a permanent injunction will issue against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances. Instead, the Supreme Court held that, consistent with the 'long tradition of equity practice,' a patent holder must satisfy a four-prong test:
- That it has suffered irreparable injury;
- That remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
- That, considering the balance of hardships between the patent holder and patent infringer, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
- That the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
The eBay decision will likely have a significant impact on patent licensing and patent litigation, because the patent holder no longer can assert the significant threat of essentially automatic injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement. Indeed, the first ruling from a trial court employing the eBay framework shows that the decision may lead to surprising results. On June 14, Microsoft persuaded a district court to deny an injunction in a case where Microsoft had been held liable for willful infringement of patents owned by a small software company.
What Happened in eBay?
MercExchange LLC, a patent-holding company, sued eBay Inc. and its subsidiary Half.com Inc., alleging infringement of three business-method patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,845,265, which is directed to facilitating the electronic sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. A jury found the '265 patent valid and infringed, but the district judge denied MercExchange's request for a permanent injunction, finding that MercExchange did not face irreparable harm from eBay's continuing infringement because it did not practice the inventions itself, and it had shown a willingness to license the patents to others. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury verdict. But the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a permanent injunction, concluding that the case was not 'sufficiently exceptional to justify the denial of a permanent injunction.'
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?