Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 22 OCTOBER 2009

Permanent Injunctions And Running Royalties In A Post eBay World

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

The Supreme Court's 2006 eBay v. MercExchange decision continues to transform the way companies and their counsel evaluate and litigate patent infringement.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Intellectual Property Today
September 1, 2009.

I. Introduction1

The Supreme Court's 2006 eBay v. MercExchange2 decision continues to transform the way companies and their counsel evaluate and litigate patent infringement. The two central post-eBay questions are the availability of a permanent injunction and, in the absence of an injunction, the assessment of a running royalty. As courts have tackled these new issues, some guideposts for litigation strategy and expectations have begun to surface.

II. The eBay Equities

The basic principles of eBay and its progeny are now well known. Notwithstanding a patentee's statutory right to exclude, permanent injunctions for patent infringement are a question of equity. As permanent injunctions are not automatic, a successful plaintiff must prove that (1) it will suffer an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) the balance of hardships between the parties

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from