|Supreme Court to Consider Availability of
Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases
11/28. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari in eBay v. Mercexchange, a patent infringement case
against eBay involving the fixed-price purchasing feature of eBay's website. The
main issue is the standard to be followed by courts in granting injunctions
The relevant statute, which is codified at
35 U.S.C. § 283, provides that "The several courts having jurisdiction of cases
under this title may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to
prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems
eBay and its amicus curiae supporters argue that Federal Circuit opinions do not
follow Section 283. Rather, they all but ignore the "principles of equity"
language, and require District Courts to accord patent holders an irrebuttable presumption
of entitlement to injunctive relief. Moreover, they argue that these automatic
injunctions have dire consequences for the information technology sector.
Proponents of injunctive relief argue that patents are a form of property,
and that the essential attributes of property are the owner's right to use the
property, and the owner's right to exclude others from using the property.
However, patent law confers no right to use upon the owner -- only a right to
exclude. Moreover, since patents by nature are conceptual, and publicly
disclosed, the owner has no means of excluding, other than by judicial
injunction. If deprived of injunctive relief, the character of the right is
substantially degraded, and the patent is of much less value. And hence, the
incentive to invest, research, develop, and disclose is substantially lessened.
This is also one of the main issues involved in current debates in the
Congress regarding patent law reform. While some internet based companies, such
as eBay, support legislation that would raise the standard for issuance
injunctions, many patent holders oppose such efforts. There have been
numerous House and Senate hearings in 2005, and considerable lobbying and
negotiations; however, no consensus has been
obtained, and no bill has yet been reported by either the
House Judiciary Committee or
Senate Judiciary Committee.
The Supreme Court may provide eBay some of the relief that it has been unable
to obtain from the Congress.
The Supreme Court wrote in its November 28
List [20 pages in PDF] that "The petition for a writ of certiorari is
granted. In addition to the Question presented by the petition, the parties are
directed 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 (1908), on when it is appropriate to grant an injunction
against a patent infringer."
While the Supreme Court's order references its 1908 opinion in
Continental Paper Bag, it is a series of recent opinions issued by the
U.S. Court of Appeals (FedCir) that is
guiding District Court Judges' decisions regarding the issuance of injunctions.
Continental Paper Bag? Continental Paper Bag has not heretofore been at the
center of debates regarding the issuance of injunctions in patent cases. It is a
nearly 100 year old case involving paper bags, not information technology. The parties
and amici all but ignored Continental Paper Bag in their pleadings. eBay cites
it only once, late in its brief. The Court of Appeals did not cite it.
The Supreme Court's opinion in Continental Paper Bag acknowledges both the
importance of granting injunctive relief to patent holders to maintain
exclusivity, and of applying principles of equity. But, it does not provide
lower courts clear guidance on standards for issuing injunctive relief.
The Court wrote that "The right which a patentee receives does not need much
further explanation. We have seen that it has been the judgment of Congress from the
beginning that the sciences and the useful arts could be best advanced by giving an
exclusive right to an inventor."
It continued that "From the character of the right of the patentee we may judge
of his remedies. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the right can only retain its
attribute of exclusiveness by a prevention of its violation. Anything but prevention takes
away the privilege which the law confers upon the patentee."
However, the Court added the following language, which eBay cites in its petition:
"If the conception of the law that a judgment in an action at law is reparation for
the trespass, it is only for the particular trespass that is the ground of the action.
There may be other trespasses and continuing wrongs and the vexation of many actions.
These are well-recognized grounds of equity jurisdiction, especially in patent
cases, and a citation of cases is unnecessary. Whether, however, as case cannot
arise where, regarding the situation of the parties in view of the public
interest, a court of equity might be justified in withholding relief by
injunction, we do not decide."
Proceedings Below. Mercexchange is the holder of
U.S. Patent No. 5,845,265, tilted "Consignment Nodes",
U.S. Patent No. 6,085,176, titled "Method and apparatus for using
search agents to search plurality of markets for items", and
U.S. Patent No. 6,202,051, titled "Facilitating internet commerce through
Mercexchange filed a complaint in U.S. District
Court (EDVa) against eBay and two other companies alleging infringement of three
To greatly oversimplify this proceeding, the District Court found willful infringement
of some claims, and awarded damages, but not injunctive relief. District Court's opinion
is reported at 275 F.Supp. 2d 695. Both eBay and Mercexchange appealed on various issues.
The Court of Appeals issued its
opinion [31 pages in
PDF] on March 16, 2005, and an
errata [1 page in PDF] on March
22, 2005. This opinion is also reported at 401 F.3d 1323.
Again, to greatly oversimplify this proceeding, the Court of Appeals reversed
the denial of injunctive relief. It wrote that there is "no reason to depart
from the general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against
patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances."
The Court, quoting from its 1989 opinion in Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d
1226, wrote that "Because the ``right to exclude recognized in a patent is but the
essence of the concept of property,´´ the general rule is that a permanent injunction will
issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged."
eBay petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari.
eBay's Petition. eBay argued in its
petition for writ of
certiorari [PDF, long download] that "This case presents an important question
of federal patent law with significant implications for the Nation's economy. A permanent
injunction in the context of patent law is a potent remedy. The enjoined defendant is faced
with tough choices: redesign its product or the product's functionality to eliminate
reliance on the patent, negotiate a license on possibly onerous terms, or cease production
or use altogether. Recognizing that this powerful and coercive remedy is not always
appropriate, Congress has expressly authorized district courts to use the equitable
discretion in granting injunction in patent cases. In particular, § 283 of the Patent
Act provides that an injunction may issue to prevent future violations only when the relief
comports with the principles of equity. ..."
eBay argued that "The Federal Circuit has decided to ignore this rule. And in its
place, the court of appeals has authored its own variant of § 283, replacing equitable
discretion with a virtually irrebuttable presumption that permanent injunctions
will issue absent the exceptional circumstance where injunctive relief would
pose a harm to the public interest by endangering the public health."
"The consequences of this rule are clear. Injunctions will issue even when, as
in this case, the district court has decided that the balance of the equities
requires otherwise. Plaintiffs who will suffer no irreparable injury, because
their future losses are fully compensable by ordinary money damages,
nevertheless would receive a patent injunction", wrote eBay.
Amicus Curiae Support for eBay. This case has attracted some amicus curiae
and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a Washington DC based
interest group that represents some information technology companies, submitted a
brief [PDF] in
which it urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.
It wrote that "The Federal Circuit’s standard of automatic injunctive relief
is fundamentally hostile towards complex products, especially today’s extremely
complex, systems-based digital information technology. The value of a deeply
embedded patented function or component may be miniscule in relation to the
value of the finished product and the costs of bringing it to market. Under such
conditions, the extraordinary leverage accorded by automatic injunctive relief
enables the patentee to extract settlements that approach the costs of shutting
down an entire product line, far in excess of what a reasonable royalty is
likely to be."
A group of 35 law professors submitted a
brief [16 pages in PDF] urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari. Their
counsel of record is Mark
Lemley (Stanford). The others include
Howard Shelanski (UC Berkeley, and former Chief Economist at the FCC), and
Dan Burk (University of Minnesota)
They wrote that the Federal Circuit "has effectively read the terms ``may´´
and ``in accordance with principles of equity´´ out of the statute. In no case in the
last twenty years has the Federal Circuit permitted a district court to apply its
equitable powers to refuse a permanent injunction after a finding of infringement.
Indeed, the court’s grant of permanent injunctive relief is so automatic that it rarely
even recites the equitable factors any longer, relying instead on an all-but-conclusive
presumption that injunctive relief is appropriate."
They want the Supreme Court "to confirm the
applicability of traditional principles of equity to patent law."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a
California based interest group that advocates the weakening of all forms of intellectual
property rights, submitted a
[23 pages in PDF] in which it urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.
It wrote that "The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has overstepped its bounds
and, in the process, tied the hands of federal judges around the nation. Flagrantly
rejecting the plain language of the United States Patent Code and the clear
discretionary powers it grants, not to mention longstanding common-law remedies
doctrines, the Federal Circuit has imposed an ``automatic injunction´´ rule in
patent cases that ignores important equitable considerations -- including those
affecting free speech and other activities protected by the First Amendment."
The EFF elaborated on its First Amendment concerns. It argued that the courts, in
determining whether to grant an injunction, must balance the interests of the patent
holder with the public's interest in free expression. "Such balance is particularly
necessary in Internet-related patent actions. Tools such as websites and ``blogging´´ have
become increasingly popular means of expression. Video and audio streaming technology is
ubiquitous. Email and Instant Messaging are essential communications media. As more and
more people use software and Internet technology to express themselves online, more and
more speech is potentially subject to regulation by intellectual property laws that govern
the use of these technologies."
"Patent owners who claim control over Internet
publishing mechanisms are in a position to threaten anyone who uses them, even
for personal noncommercial purposes. Thus, forcing courts to grant mandatory
injunctive relief to patent owners gives those owners the right to control who
can speak on the Internet. The Federal Circuit’s rule denies judges the
discretion they will need to address this problem."
The EFF brief lists some patents on internet
technologies. However, it does not identify any instances in which a patent
holder has engaged in a content based assertion of patent rights. That is, it
has not cited any example in which a patent holder has sought or obtained an
injunction for the purpose of suppressing any particular speaker with whom the
patent holder disagrees.
More Information. eBay is represented by
Carter Philips of the Washington DC
office of the law firm of Sidley Austin. Mercexchange is represented by
of the Washington DC office of the law firm of Hunton & Williams.
The Business Software Alliance (BSA),
America Online (AOL), and
submitted amicus briefs.
This case is eBay Inc., et al. v. Mercexchange, LLC, Sup. Ct. No.
05-130, a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, App. Ct. Nos. 03-1600 and 03-1616. Judge Bryson wrote the
opinion of the Court of Appeals, in which Judges Michel and Clevenger joined.
The Court of Appeals case is an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Jerome Friedman presiding. See also, Supreme Court
|Washington Tech Calendar
New items are highlighted in red.
|Tuesday, November 29
The House will next meet on Tuesday, December 6, 2005.
The Senate will next meet on Monday, December 12, 2005.
10:00 AM. The Supreme
Court will hear oral argument in Illinois Tool Works v. Independent
Ink, No. 04-1329, a patent tying antitrust case. See, story titled "Supreme
Court Grants Certiorari in Patent Tying Antitrust Case" in
TLJ Daily E-Mail
Alert No. 1,158, June 21, 2005.
12:00 NOON - 1:30 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will host an event titled "The
On-Going Debate Over the Sunshine Act". Location: 6th floor,
Sidley Austin, 1501 K Street, NW.
9:30 AM - 5:00 PM. The Senate Commerce
Committee (SCC) will host an event titled "Open Forum on Decency".
Press contact: Melanie Alvord (Stevens) at 202
224-8456 or Melanie_Alvord at commerce dot senate dot gov, or Aaron Saunders (Stevens)
at 202 224-3991 or Aaron_Saunders at commerce dot senate dot gov. Location:
Room 50, Dirksen Building.
|Wednesday, November 30
9:00 AM - 4:00 PM. The
National Archives and Records
Administration's (NARA) Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records
Archives (ACERA) will hold a meeting. The NARA asserts that registration is
required for attendance. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 15, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 219, at
Pages 69360. Location: 700 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.
9:30 AM. The Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) North American Numbering Council (NANC) will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 9, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 216, at
Pages 68045 - 68046. Location: FCC, Commission Meeting Room (Room TW-C305),
445 12th Street, SW.
10:30 AM. The
U.S. District Court (DC) will hold a supplemental status conference in
U.S. v. Microsoft, D.C. Nos. 98-1232 and 98-1233. Judge Colleen
Kotelly will preside. Location: Courtroom 11, Prettyman Courthouse, 333 Constitution Ave., NW.
11:45 AM - 1:00 PM. BellSouth's CTO
Bill Smith will hold a
news conference on network neutrality. Lunch will be served.
BellSouth's notice states "Working Press Only Please". RSVP to Bill McCloskey
at 202 463-4129. Location: BellSouth, 1133 21st St., NW, Suite 900.
TIME? The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) will host a luncheon on the future of
regulation of communications. The panelists will be Ray Gifford
(Progress and Freedom Foundation), Andy Schwartzman
(Media Access Project), Jeannine Kenney
(Consumers Union), and Jerry Ellig (Mercatus
Center at George Mason University). The moderators will be FCBA President Michele
Farquhar and Bryan Tramont. Location: Hogan & Hartson, 13th floor, 555 13th
2:00 - 3:00 PM. The Department of State's (DOS)
International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) will meet to prepare
for meetings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development/Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy (OECD/ICCP)
Working Parties ITU-D Telecommunication Development Advisory Group (TDAG). See,
notice in the Federal Register, October 26, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 206, at Page
61876. Location: DOS, Harry Truman Building, Room 2533A.
|Thursday, December 1
10:00 AM. The Antitrust
Modernization Commission (AMC) will meet. There will be a panel from 10:00 AM
to 12:00 NOON titled "Government Civil Remedies". There will be
three panels from 1:15 - 4:30 PM titled "Statutory Immunities and
notice in the Federal Register, November 16, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 220, at Page 69511.
Location: Federal Trade Commission, Conference Center,
601 New Jersey Ave., NW.
12:00 NOON - 2:00 PM. The
Forum on Technology will host an event titled "The Future of Broadband".
notice. Location: Room G50, Dirksen Building, Capitol Hill.
12:00 NOON. The
Heritage Foundation will host a lecture
by Tom Bethell, author of the book titled
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science [Amazon]. See,
Location: Heritage, 214 Massachusetts Ave., NE.
12:30 - 2:00 PM. The Federal
Communications Bar Association's (FCBA) International Telecommunications Practice
Committee will host a brown bag lunch. David Gross (U.S. Coordinator for Communications
and Information Policy at the State Department) will discuss the November meeting of the
World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, Tunisia. Location:
Hogan & Hartson, 555 13th St., NW, Concourse Level.
10:00 AM - 4:30 PM. The Antitrust
Modernization Commission (AMC) will meet. The topic will be "Statutory
Immunities and Exemptions". See, prepared testimony [PDF]
of John Sullivan, prepared testimony [PDF] of James Miller,
testimony [27 pages in PDF] of Peter Carstenen (University of Wisconsin law school), and
prepared testimony [44 pages in PDF] of Darren Bush, Gregory Leonard (NERA
Economic Consulting), and Stephen Ross (University of Illinois law school). See, AMC
notice in the Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 220, November 16, 2005, at Page 69511.
Location: FTC, Conference Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.
6:00 - 8:15 PM. The
Federal Communications Bar Association (FCBA) will
host a continuing legal education (CLE) seminar titled "Regulation in the
Deadline to submit initial comments to the
Copyright Office in response to its notice of
inquiry (NOI) regarding exempting certain classes of works from the prohibition against
circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. See,
17 U.S.C. § 1201(a), and
notice in the Federal Register, October 3, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 190, at
Pages 57526 - 57531.
Deadline for the National Cable &
Telecommunications Association's (NCTA) and Consumer
Electronics Association (CEA) to file their second round of status reports with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding
progress in talks regarding the feasibility of a downloadable security solution for
integrating navigation and security functionalities in cable set top boxes. See, FCC's
Report and Order [37 pages in PDF] adopted and released on March 18,
2005. This order is FCC 05-76 in CS Docket No. 97-80. See also, FCC
[PDF] summarizing this order, and story titled "FCC Again Delays
Deadline for Integrating Navigation and Security Functionalities in Cable Set
Top Boxes" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,099, March 21, 2005. See also,
of extensions (DA 05-1930) [2 pages in PDF].
|Friday, December 2
8:30 AM - 3:00 PM. The
National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST) Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award Board of Overseers will meet. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 222, at Page
69954. Location: NIST, Administration Building, Room A1038, Gaithersburg, MD.
12:00 NOON - 1:45 PM. The
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a
luncheon titled "The State of Trade: The Doha WTO Round, APEC, and the
FTAA". The speakers will be Claude Barfield (AEI), James Glassman (AEI), and
Arvind Panagariya (Columbia University). See,
Location: Twelfth floor, 1150 17th St., NW.
Deadline to submit comments to the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
regarding its out of cycle reviews (OCRs) of Russia, Canada, Indonesia and the
Philippines. These OCRs pertain to the identification of countries that deny adequate
and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable
market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection. See,
notice in the Federal Register: September 29, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 188, at
Pages 56963 - 56964.
|Monday, December 5
1:00 - 5:00 PM. The Antitrust Modernization
Commission (AMC) will meet. The topic will be "Antitrust in Regulated
Industries". The witnesses will be Scott Alvarez, Ellen Hanson, Rob McKenna,
Mark Cooper, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Diana Moss, and John Thorne. See, AMC
notice in the Federal Register, November 16, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 220, at Page
69511. Location: Federal Trade Commission, Conference
Center, 601 New Jersey Ave., NW.
|Tuesday, December 6
The House will return from its Thanksgiving recess at 2:00 PM.
8:30 AM - 5:00 PM. Day one of a two day meeting of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology's
(NIST) Information Security and Privacy Advisory
Board (ISPAB). The agenda includes the following items: (1) Privacy Act framework
effort, (2) status reports on ISPAB work plan items, (3) briefing on NIST Next Generation
Internet Protocol (IPv6), (4) briefing on NIST National Vulnerability Database Project,
(5) NTIA Information Security Outreach Briefing, and (6) discussion of NIST's
Cryptographic Hash Function Workshop. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 18, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 222, at Pages 69953
- 69954. Location: Doubletree Hotel and Executive Meeting Center, 1750
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
9:00 AM. The Department of Commerce's (DOC)
Bureau of Industry and Security's (BIS) Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory
Committee will hold a partially closed meeting. The agenda includes a discussion of the
BIS's deemed export rules. See,
notice in the Federal Register, November 23, 2005, Vol. 70, No. 225, at
Page 70784. Location: Room 3884, Hoover Building, 14th Street between
Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW.
TIME? The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee will meet. Location: ___.
5:00 - 7:00 PM. The
Public Knowledge will host an event
titled "celebration of the season". RSVP by December 1, 2005 to aoliverio at
publicknowledge dot org or 202 518-0020. Location: Suite 650, 1875 Connecticut
|About Tech Law Journal
Tech Law Journal publishes a free access web site and
subscription e-mail alert. The basic rate for a subscription
to the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert is $250 per year. However, there
are discounts for subscribers with multiple recipients. Free one
month trial subscriptions are available. Also, free
subscriptions are available for journalists,
federal elected officials, and employees of the Congress, courts, and
executive branch. The TLJ web site is
free access. However, copies of the TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert are not
published in the web site until one month after writing. See, subscription
P.O. Box 4851, Washington DC, 20008.
Copyright 1998 - 2005 David Carney, dba Tech Law Journal. All