This article talks about the repercussions of the decision on eBay Inc. v.MercExchange, L.L.C.
As the article argues, I believe that the most important impact caused by the Supreme Court ruling is related to companies that do not make the patent-protected products but only license them. I agree with the decision of the Court, as it seems to be fairer to demand courts to look for other available remedies before granting an injunction relief. As I have posted before here, it is debatable how much licensee-only companies contribute to innovation. Therefore, a “general rule in favor of injunction relief for patent infringements” – as ruled by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – could encourage more companies to only seek for profiting from their patents instead of actually producing the products.
However, the article points out that, despite the Supreme Court decision, such type of companies may still seek an administrative injunct relief from the International Trade Commission, where such remedy can be granted without going through the 4-step test imposed to courts.
I liked this article because it highlighted the urgency of innovation protection. In an era where most of the major tech changes that are to come have already come (cars, cell phones, renewable energy), it can be very challenging for a new entrepreneur to not only identify an area for innovation but also protect and seize that opportunity before the landscape changes. In this sense, law can be both a protective mechanism in instances where it prevails and innovators can rely upon it–but the law can also be a major barrier to entry in cases where the law changes and the once opportune innovation is either no longer legally possible or becomes economically infeasible.