After reading eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, I attempted to determine what the implications of the case have been. This article from 2016 was an interesting read that discusses why district courts seem to be misapplying the case.
The article first notes that the case has “drastically changed the legal landscape for when courts issue injunctions in patent cases,” citing to the fact that denials of injunctions have quadrupled in the aftermath of the case. Supposedly, the party that has suffered the most is the “patent trolls,” as they are not actively producing goods or services. The reason for these changes? According to this scholar, district courts are not citing Justice Thomas’s majority opinion in newer cases, but are instead relying on Justice Kennedy’s concurrence.
Rather than relying on the four principles of equity outlined in the majority opinion, district courts are considering four other factors that were included in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence: 1. Whether the patent holder practices the patent or licenses the patent 2. Whether the parties are competitors 3. Type of patent and 4. Whether the infringing component is a significant part of the good. The article concludes by arguing that considering these factors is at odds with the majority opinion, “Where district courts have adopted categorical rules denying injunctions to certain types of patent holders or in cases involving certain types of patents, they have misapplied eBay.” It will be intriguing to see if my classmates found similar opinions in the wake of this case.
I found an article that specifically talked about district courts relying on Justice Kennedy’s concurrence from eBay v. MercExchange, LLC. This article specifically discussed (in a footnote), a case from the Eastern District of Texas: z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Here’s the link to the article: http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v20/20HarvJLTech235.pdf
Here’s the link to the case: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2428309/z4-technologies-inc-v-microsoft-corp/
I really appreciated this article because I honestly did not understand the Ebay case in just reading the case itself.
“eBay is a unanimous opinion that makes one thing clear: every type of patent holder—regardless of whether the holder practices its patent—may be entitled to injunctive relief if it shows that principles of equity tip in favor of such relief.”
^pulled from the article you posted–maybe helpful to others who didn’t understand the point of the case, like me. thanks!