1 November 2015
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange
In today’s society, we use patent laws as way to exclude
others from utilizing or benefiting from an invention for a period of time. The
patent act protects an inventor that creates any new and useful process,
machine, and/or manufacturer which also contains a description of the
invention. However, once the patent has expired, it will give the right to
others to create, use, and sell the same invention. The use of patent laws was
disputed in the case of eBay v. MercExchange. This case displays how we have
moved from the federal circuits’ general rule in patent disputes, to the
traditional case by case analysis of the four-factor test. In the case, “the
U.S Supreme made an important unanimous ruling that the traditional four factor
test applied in courts of equity when determining whether to issues injunctive
relief also applies in patent cases.”(Mota)
The Traditional Four-Factor tests consists of:
·
Factor 1: The Purpose and Character of the Use
·
Factor 2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work
·
Factor 3: The Amount of Substantiality of the
Portion Used
·
Factor 4: The effect of the Use on the Potential
Market for or Value of the Work
Patent injunctive relief is based on these four factors
where the plaintiff must demonstrate they have been affected by the alleged
infringers. In this case, MercExchange has to prove how their patent was
violated by eBay to sell and negotiate their goods.According to the District
Court, they stated that there was no airreparable harm caused to the plaintiff,
therefore, a permanent injunction would not be issued. In addition, the
district court found that monetary damages were an adequate remedy. “The
four-part test
requires the plaintiff to prove that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
that the law does not provide other adequate ways to compensate it; that
considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, an
injunction is warranted; and that the public interest would not be harmed by a
permanent injunction.”(Tech)
Although the district court found
that a monetary compensation was an adequate remedy for the plaintiff, a
permanent injunction was not granted because it would harm public interest.
They believed that a patent holder that did not practice the patent law should
not be granted a permanent injunction. The defendant appealed and according to
the Court Appeal “stated that a general concern over business method patents is
not a sufficient public purpose to deny injunctive relief…Applying the general
rule, the denial of permanent injunction was reversed.”
Works Cited
AuthorLastName, FirstName. Title of the Book Being
Referenced. City Name: Name of Publisher, Year.
Crews, Dr. Kenneth D. Fair
Use. 7 November 2015
<https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html>.
Last Name, First,
Middle. Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name, Year.
LastName, First,
Middle. “Article Title.” Journal Title (Year): Pages From –
To.
Mota, Sue Ann. eBay
v. MercExchange: Traditional Four-Factor Test for Injunction Relief Applies to
Patent Cases, According to the Supreme Court. 23 April 2007. 1 November
2015 <https://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/728020.pdf>.
Tech, Oyez.
Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
29 March 2006. 2 November 2015 <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/05-130>.
