CyberTech Rambler

May 15, 2006

Sensible Ruling from Supreme Court with respect to Permanent Injunction against Patent Infringer

Filed under: Uncategorized — ctrambler @ 5:46 pm

The Supreme Court had spoken in the case of "Ebay vs MercExchange". (See this ZDNET article). Ebay is appealling against a permanent injunction prohibits it from using a technology patented by MercExchange.

The Supreme Court in effect, return the question of whether a "permanent injunction" is warranted in this case back to lower court, with the advise that in some cases where the patent holder does not use the patent but merely collecting licensing fee from licensees, "monetary damage" might be sufficient to remedy the infringement.

The Supreme Court expressly said that it does not take a position on whether  "permanent injunction" or "Monetary damage" is the appropriate remedy. In fact, it is rather likely that the lower court, after considering the case, still decides that "permanent injunction" is the appropriate way in this case. In my humble, non-lawyer opinion, the important fact is the Supreme Court open the door that might one day means companies that does nothing except  licensing patents might find that it must license it patents to everyone who wants a license at a reasonable fee by stopping them from "gaming the system". It does this by taking away what I call the "Intellectual Monopoly" of patents from these companies, reducing it to "Intellectual Property". (See this article for a description of Intellectual Monopoly and Intellectual Property").

In my opinion, this is an important ruling for "Intellectual Property". The Supreme Court was tossed a hot potato and it handles it well.  

1 Comment »

  1. […] On the heels of a recent Supreme Court opinion that “permanent injunction is not always the warranted, and that monetary damage might be sufficient,  if the patent holder does not practice the patent” as covered in my blog post here, Patently-O is carrying a story about a patent holder (Finisar) that was forced to license the patent to the infringer (DirectTV), eventhough the jury found that the infringement is wilful. […]

    Pingback by CyberTech Rambler » Finally, something that knock some sense into the Patent system — August 8, 2006 @ 6:00 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: