SUPREME COURT PATENT CASE


CNet reports on a big patent cases that has far-reaching consequences for US patent infringers (and no, it’s not the BlackBerry case). This time eBay is in the dock. A federal jury found that eBay’s ‘buy it now' feature, which allows sellers to fix a price that they will accept for their goods, even before the auction has run its course, infringed two patents owned by MercExchange. The case is due before the Supreme Court on 29 March, but infringement is not an issue. Instead the question is whether a permanent final injunction should automatically be granted in infringement cases, or if instead the public interest and irreparable harm that the defendant would suffer should be weighed against the patentee’s rights. eBay’s argument is that automatic injunctions would be disastrous for their business and the businesses of may other companies and that any harm suffered by the defendants can be made good by money.


The IPKat has a good deal of sympathy for this approach. He wonders whether many of the small patent owners would have had any chance of realising anything like the returns that they stand to realise through the award of damages. Being infringed could be the best thing that ever happened to them.
SUPREME COURT PATENT CASE SUPREME COURT PATENT CASE Reviewed by Anonymous on Sunday, March 05, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.