The Supreme Court Engages in Judicial Activism in Interpreting the Patent Law in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
46 Pages Posted: 4 Feb 2008 Last revised: 1 Jun 2014
Abstract
Almost a century ago the Supreme Court held that a patent owner is generally entitled to permanent injunctive relief to prevent ongoing infringement. Lower courts, such as the federal circuit, consistently applied this rule. Nevertheless, in eBay, the Court overruled this general rule. Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous court, unequivocally repudiated almost a century of precedent in a cursory opinion which is devoid of any explanation or justification for its action. Precedent - a fundamental tenet of our judicial system which facilitates predictable judicial decisions - is undermined by the eBay decision. Chief Justice Roberts, in a concurring opinion, recognized the importance of precedent but failed to explain why he supported rejecting precedent in this dispute. Justice Kennedy, in a second concurring opinion, likewise recognized the importance of precedent. However, he suggested three somewhat dubious reasons for rejecting precedent in this case.
Keywords: patent law, patents, trolls, non-practicing entities, permanent injunction, precedent, ebay
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
Pleading Standards after Bell Atlantic v. Twombly
By Scott Dodson
-
Free Riding: An Overstated, and Unconvincing, Explanation for Resale Price Maintenance
By Marina Lao
-
The Roberts Court and the Chicago School of Antitrust: The 2006 Term and Beyond
-
The Proper Role of Courts: The Mistakes of the Supreme Court in Leegin
-
The Roberts Court after Two Years: Antitrust, Intellectual Property Rights, and Competition Policy
-
Take Two: Stare Decisis in Antitrust - The Per Se Rule Against Horizontal Price-Fixing
-
Rights and Remedies Post Ebay v. Mercexchange - Deep Waters Stirred