Anmerkungen:
In: Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2008
Nach Informationen von SSRN wurde die ursprüngliche Fassung des Dokuments June 26, 2008 erstellt
Beschreibung:
In eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., the Supreme Court overruled the longstanding practice of granting permanent injunctions to successful patent plaintiffs as a matter of course. When deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction, courts in patent cases now need to use the same four factor test that is used in other contexts. That test requires courts to analyze: (1) whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; (2) whether there is an adequate remedy at law; (3) the balance of hardships on the respective parties; and (4) whether granting an injunction would disservice the public interest. This Article provides a critical analysis of the case law that has emerged after eBay applying these factors, and selects three categories of fact patterns that courts consider when deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction. In particular, this article views permanent injunctions from an economic perspective and assesses whether relying on these fact patterns to determine whether a permanent injunction successfully balances the goals of the patent system.The article also discusses how, in the absence of a permanent injunction, some courts have granted a compulsory license to the losing party or quot;ongoing royaltyquot; to provide the patent holder with a remedy for future infringement. These decisions either provide no or a poorly reasoned explanation for the authority underlying such a remedy. The article suggests that the courts do not have the authority to issue an on-going royalty, and should instead exercise judicial restraint and quot;do nothingquot; to remedy the possibility of future infringement. The doctrine of willful infringement already provides an adequate incentive to prevent defendants from continuing to infringe a successful plaintiff's patent