green
Positive treatment
29.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 38 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, applying its “ ‘general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.’” Id. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Invista North America S.Á.R.L. v. M & G USA Corp.
(D.I. 481 at 2-3, 13) A. Standard of Review In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005)) (hereinafter “eBay”), the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s longstanding “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” Permanent injunctions in patent cases must be based on a case-by-case assessment of the traditional equitable factors governing injunctions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Flexible Lifeline Systems., Inc. v. Precision Lift, Inc.
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court, “applying its ‘general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.’ ” Id. at 391 (quoting MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Belden Technologies Inc. v. Superior Essex Communications LP
Standard of review In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)) (hereinafter “eBay ”), the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s longstanding “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” Permanent injunctions in patent cases must be based on a case-by-case assessment of the traditional equitable factors governing injunctions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
B. Braun Melsungen Ag v. Terumo Medical Corp.
In eBay, the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s prior “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” Id. (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.
Motion for a Permanent Injunction In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (hereinafter “eBay ”), the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s prior “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salinger v. Colting
The Federal Circuit reversed on appeal, applying a “general rule ... that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged.” MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
IGT v. Bally Gaming International Inc.
STANDARD In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)) (hereinafter “eBay”), the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s longstanding “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” Permanent injunctions in patent cases must be based on a case-by-case assessment of the traditional equitable factors governing injunctions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Transamerica Life Insurance v. Lincoln National Life Insurance
In a part of the decision below in eBay left undisturbed by the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals observed, “A general concern regarding business-method patents, however, is not the type of important public need that justifies the unusual step of denying injunctive relief.” MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding, because neither of the courts below fairly applied the traditional equitable principles in deciding whether or n…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.
Permanent injunction standard In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)) (hereinafter *618 “eBay ”), the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s longstanding “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” Permanent injunctions in patent cases must be based on a case-by-case assessment of the traditional equitable factors governing injunctions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
The Federal Circuit reversed, “articulating] a ‘general rule,’ unique to patent disputes, ‘that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged.’ ” Id. at 393-94, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting MercExchange L.L.C., v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
TruePosition Inc. v. ANDREW CORPORATION
Permanent injunction standard In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. (hereinafter “eBay”), the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s prior “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lennon v. Premise Media Corp.
In eBay, the Supreme Court vacated the determination of the Federal Circuit that applied that circuit’s " ‘general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.’ ” 547 U.S. at 391 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 (quoting MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mercexchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc.
(2×)
MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed.Cir.2005). 3 eBay did not appeal the validity or infringement of the '265 patent to the Supreme Court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc.
(2×)
MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1335 (Fed.Cir.2005).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
epicRealm, Licensing, LLC v. Autoflex Leasing, Inc.
(8×)
also: Cited "see"
For example, in MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d at 1332, the Federal Circuit held that, in order to demonstrate the intent required for active inducement, the patentee must at least be able to show that the alleged inducer had knowledge of the infringing acts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Praxair, Inc. v. Atmi, Inc.
STANDARD OF REVIEW In eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)) (hereinafter “eBay ”), the Supreme Court overruled the Federal Circuit’s longstanding “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 2 Permanent injunctions in patent cases must be based on a case-by-case assessment of the traditional equitable factors governing injunctions.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
IMX, Inc. v. LENDINGTREE, LLC
(D.I. 270 at 8-11) The Supreme Court issued its decision in eBay on May 15, 2006, in which it overruled the Federal Circuit’s longstanding “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.” 126 S.Ct. 733 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dsu Medical Corporation v. Jms Co., Ltd
(2×)
Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369 , 1378 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Monsanto Company v. Scruggs
(2×)
Permanent Injunction 38 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006), requires courts to consider the standard four part test for permanent injunctions in patent cases and reverses this court's traditional rule that "courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances[,]" MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp.
There the Court, in invalidating the Federal Circuit's “general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances," id., 126 S.Ct. at 1838 , 2006 WL 1310670 , at *1 (quoting MercExchange, L.L.C v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted), specifically found that “[njothing in the Patent Act indicates that Congress intended” a departure from traditional equitable principles, id., 126 S.Ct. at 1839 , 2006 WL 1310670 , at *2.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL
(3×)
According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. 401 F. 3d, at 1338.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
(3×)
According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. 401 F. 3d, at 1338.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.
(3×)
According to the Court of Appeals, this statutory right to exclude alone justifies its general rule in favor of permanent injunctive relief. 401 F. 3d, at 1338.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.
It should be noted that "there is a lack of clarity concerning whether the required intent must be merely to induce the specific acts [of infringement] or additionally to cause an infringement.” MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Insituform Techs., Inc. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 385 F.3d 1360 , 1378 (Fed.Cir.2004)), cert. granted in part, - U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 733 , 163 L.Ed.2d 567 (2005); see Manville Sales, 917 F.2d at 553 ("The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer's actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or shou…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson, Co.
It should be noted that “there is a lack of clarity concerning whether the required intent must be merely to induce the specific acts [of infringement] or additionally to cause an infringement.” MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Masimo Corp.
“Because the ‘right to exclude recognized in a patent is but the essence of the concept of property,’ the general rule is that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged.” MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2005) (quoting Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1246-47 (Fed.Cir.1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp.
It should be noted that "there is a lack of clarity concerning whether the required intent must be merely to induce the specific acts [of infringement] or additionally to cause an infringement." MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Insituform Techs., Inc. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 385 F.3d 1360 , 1378 (Fed.Cir.2004)); see Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed.Cir.1990) ("The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer’s actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Memc Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corporation
Vending Sales, Inc., 35 F.3d 1576 , 1578 n. 2 (Fed.Cir.1994). 4 It should be noted that "there is a lack of clarity concerning whether the required intent must be merely to induce the specific acts [of infringement] or additionally to cause an infringement." MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Insituform Techs., Inc. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 385 F.3d 1360 , 1378 (Fed.Cir.2004)); see Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 553 (Fed.Cir.1990) ("The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringer's actions induced infr…
discussed
Cited "see"
Nigerians in Diaspora Organization Americas v. Key
See MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Chapco, Inc. v. Woodway USA, Inc.
See MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc. , 401 F.3d 1323 , 1329 (Fed Cir. 2005), vacated on other grounds , eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC , 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (discussing how the court's Markman order need not be provided to the jury).
cited
Cited "see"
The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
See MercExchange LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 , 1329 (Fed.Cir.2005), vacated on other grounds, eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006).
cited
Cited "see"
Pfizer Inc. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
See MercExchange LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 , 1329 (Fed.Cir.2005).
cited
Cited "see"
Cordance Corp. v. Amazon. Com, Inc.
See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391-92 , 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) (vacating and remanding MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 (Fed.Cir.2005)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Yoon Ja Kim v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
(2×)
See MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
KEG Technologies, Inc. v. Laimer
See MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 , 1339 (Fed.Cir.2005), rev’d on other grounds, eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 1837 , 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Third Wave Technologies, Inc. v. Stratagene Corp.
See MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 , 1332 (Fed.Cir.2005) (noting that infringement requires proof of intent but that it is not always clear whether the required intent is merely to induce the specific acts of infringement or to cause an infringement; “a patentee must be able to demonstrate at least that the alleged inducer had knowledge of the infringing acts in order to demonstrate either level of intent”); Moba, B.V., 325 F.3d at 1318 (knowledge requirement met with “ ‘proof of actual intent to cause the acts which constitute the infringement’ ”) (quoting Hewlett-…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mercexchange, L.L.C.
v.
Ebay, Inc.
v.
Ebay, Inc.
2003-1600.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mar 22, 2005.
401 F.3d 1323
Cited by 34 opinions | Published
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
ERRATA
March 18, 2005 Appeal No. 03-1600 and Appeal No. 03-1616 Mercexchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc. & Half.com, Inc. Decided: March 16, 2005 Precedential Opinion Change the opinion as follows: • Replace page 2, lines 14-23, with the following: defendants, the district court granted in part and denied in part the motions for summary judgment that the claims of the ’051 patent were invalid for an inadequate written description. The remainder of the case went to trial before a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that eBay had willfully infringed claims 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 26 of the ’265 patent and had induced ReturnBuy to infringe claims 1, 4, 7, and 23 of the ’265 patent; that Half.com had willfully infringed claims 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17-18, 20, 22, and 26-29 of the ‘265 patent and claims 1, 5-6, 29, 31-32, and 34-39 of the ’176 patent; and that neither the ’265 patent nor the ’176 patent was invalid. With respect to damages, the jury found eBay liable for $10.5 million for infringing the ’265 patent and $5.5 million for inducing ReturnBuy to infringe the ’265 patent. The jury also held Half.com liable for $19 million for infringing the ’176 patent and the ‘265 patent. • Delete footnote 1 on page 6.