Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C., No. 05-130.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtThomas
Citation164 L. Ed. 2d 625,547 U.S. 388,126 S. Ct. 1843
PartiesEBAY INC. et al. <I>v.</I> MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C.
Docket NumberNo. 05-130.
Decision Date15 May 2006
547 U.S. 388
126 S. Ct. 1843
164 L. Ed. 2d 625
EBAY INC. et al.
v.
MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C.
No. 05-130.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 29, 2006.
Decided May 15, 2006.

Petitioners operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list goods they wish to sell. Respondent sought to license its business method patent to petitioners, but no agreement was reached. In respondent's subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, that petitioners had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied respondent's motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its "general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances." 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339.

Held: The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. The decision to grant or deny such relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. These principles apply with equal force to Patent Act disputes. "[A] major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied." Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320. Nothing in the Act indicates such a departure. Pp. 391-394.

401 F. 3d 1323, vacated and remanded.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, post, p. 394. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined, post, p. 395.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Richard D. Bernstein, Virginia A. Seitz, and Allan M. Soobert.

[547 U.S. 389]

Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in support of respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney General Barnett, Acting Assistant Attorney General Katsas, Deputy Solicitor General Hungar, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, David Seidman, Mark R. Freeman, John M. Whealan, Cynthia C. Lynch, and Heather F. Auyang.

Seth P. Waxman argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Paul R. Q. Wolfson, Scott L. Robertson, Gregory N. Stillman, Jennifer A. Albert, David M. Young, and Brian M. Buroker.*

[547 U.S. 390]

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.


Ordinarily, a federal court considering whether to award permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies the four-factor test historically employed by courts of equity. Petitioners eBay Inc. and Half.com, Inc., argue that this traditional test applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. We agree and, accordingly, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

Petitioner eBay operates a popular Internet Web site that allows private sellers to list goods they wish to sell, either through an auction or at a fixed price. Petitioner Half.com, now a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay, operates a similar Web site. Respondent MercExchange, L. L. C., holds a number of patents, including a business method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between private individuals by establishing a central authority to promote trust among participants. See U. S. Patent No. 5,845,265. MercExchange sought to license its patent to eBay and Half.com, as it had previously done with other companies, but the parties failed to reach an agreement. MercExchange subsequently filed a patent infringement suit against eBay and Half.com in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. A jury found

547 U.S. 391

that MercExchange's patent was valid, that eBay and Half.com had infringed that patent, and that an award of damages was appropriate.1

Following the jury verdict, the District Court denied MercExchange's motion for permanent injunctive relief. 275 F. Supp. 2d 695 (2003). 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." 401 F. 3d 1323, 1339 (2005). We granted certiorari to determine the appropriateness of this general rule. 546 U. S. 1029 (2005).

II

According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. See, e. g., Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 311-313 (1982); Amoco Production Co. v. Gambell, 480 U. S. 531, 542 (1987). The decision to grant or deny permanent injunctive relief is an act of equitable discretion by the district court, reviewable on appeal for abuse of discretion. See, e. g., Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S., at 320.

These familiar principles apply with equal force to disputes arising under the Patent Act. As this Court has long recognized, "a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied." Ibid.; see also Amoco, supra, at 542. Nothing in the Patent Act indicates

547 U.S. 392

that Congress intended such a departure. To the contrary, the Patent Act expressly provides that injunctions "may" issue "in accordance with the principles of equity." 35 U. S. C. § 283.2

To be sure, the Patent Act also declares that "patents shall have the attributes of personal property," § 261, including "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention," § 154(a)(1). 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. But the creation of a right is distinct from the provision of remedies for violations of that right. Indeed, the Patent Act itself indicates that patents shall have the attributes of personal property "[s]ubject to the provisions of this title," 35 U. S. C. § 261, including, presumably, the provision that injunctive relief "may" issue only "in accordance with the principles of equity," § 283.

This approach is consistent with our treatment of injunctions under the Copyright Act. Like a patent owner, a copyright holder possesses "the right to exclude others from using his property." Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127 (1932); see also id., at 127-128 ("A copyright, like a patent, is at once the equivalent given by the public for benefits bestowed by the genius and meditations and skill of individuals and the incentive to further efforts for the same important objects" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Like the Patent Act, the Copyright Act provides that courts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3475 practice notes
  • Texas v. Biden, 21-10806
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 13, 2021
    ...equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction." eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The district court applied that test and concluded the States were entitled to a permanent injunction. Biden I, 2021 WL 3603341,......
  • New Mexico Health Connections v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. CIV 16-0878 JB\JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • October 19, 2018
    ...equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The Tenth Circuit has not, however, performed the traditional four-factor inquiry when vacating agency action -- or ordering a ......
  • United States v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 18cv5213
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 14, 2018
    ...would not be disserved by the issuance of a permanent injunction." Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 296 (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) ). In other words, this inquiry turns on "whether the public interest would be disserved by entr......
  • City of San Jose v. Trump, No. 20-CV-05167-RRC-LHK-EMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 22, 2020
    ...and (4) that the public interest would 497 F.Supp.3d 744 not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). In the instant case, Plaintiffs have satisfied all four factors. As to the first two factors, b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3396 cases
  • Texas v. Biden, 21-10806
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 13, 2021
    ...equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction." eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The district court applied that test and concluded the States were entitled to a permanent injunction. Biden I, 2021 WL 3603341,......
  • New Mexico Health Connections v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., No. CIV 16-0878 JB\JHR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • October 19, 2018
    ...equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The Tenth Circuit has not, however, performed the traditional four-factor inquiry when vacating agency action -- or ordering a ......
  • United States v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 18cv5213
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 14, 2018
    ...would not be disserved by the issuance of a permanent injunction." Citigroup, 752 F.3d at 296 (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006) ). In other words, this inquiry turns on "whether the public interest would be disserved by entr......
  • City of San Jose v. Trump, No. 20-CV-05167-RRC-LHK-EMC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 22, 2020
    ...and (4) that the public interest would 497 F.Supp.3d 744 not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. , 547 U.S. 388, 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). In the instant case, Plaintiffs have satisfied all four factors. As to the first two factors, b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 firm's commentaries
  • Trademark Modernization Act Resolves Disparate Handling Of Presumption Of Irreparable Harm In Trademark Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 9, 2021
    ...Court decisions spark change The first hint of a change came from the Supreme Court decisions in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L. Ed.2d 641 (2006) and Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 In eBa......
  • Trademark Modernization Act Resolves Disparate Handling Of Presumption Of Irreparable Harm In Trademark Cases
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 9, 2021
    ...Court decisions spark change The first hint of a change came from the Supreme Court decisions in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L. Ed.2d 641 (2006) and Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 In eBa......
  • Competition Litigation Laws And Regulations
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 6, 2022
    ...equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction." eBay Inc. v. MercExchange L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Injunctive relief can take many forms, but most often, the court orders the defendant to cease the anticompetitive 3.2 If dama......
  • US Trademark Modernization Act Takes Effect
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • January 25, 2022
    ...15 U.S.C. ' 1064(3) 6 15 U.S.C. ' 1064(5)-(6); The cost to file is $600 per class of goods and services. 7 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) 8 See CFE Racing Prods. v. BMF Wheels, Inc., 793 F.3d 571, 596 (6th Cir. 2015) (observing that irreparable harm exists in a trademark......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
65 books & journal articles
  • Judging the Fed.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 2, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...prong--which asks the court to consider the "balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant," eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)--applies somewhat awkwardly to suits against the government. When the government is the nonmoving party, the relevant question is n......
  • WITHHOLDING INJUNCTIONS IN COPYRIGHT CASES: IMPACTS OF EBAY.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 63 Nbr. 3, February 2022
    • February 1, 2022
    ...Jessica Silbey, Xiying Tang, Rebecca Tushnet, Jacob Victor, and Christopher Yoo for comments on earlier versions of this Article. (1.) 547 U.S. 388 (2006); see Matthew Sag & Pamela Samuelson, The Hysteresis Thesis: An Empirical Study of Copyright Injunctions After eBay 19 (Aug. 2, 2021)......
  • Intellectual Property Suits in the United States Court of Federal Claims
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Landslide Nbr. 10-1, September 2017
    • September 1, 2017
    ...rights to obtain what it needs from manufacturers and to use the same.”), abrogated on other grounds by eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391–94 (2006). Published in Landslide® magazine, Volume 10, Number 1 , a publication of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA-......
  • THE TRADITIONAL BURDENS FOR FINAL INJUNCTIONS IN PATENT CASES C.1789 AND SOME MODERN IMPLICATIONS.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 Nbr. 2, December 2020
    • December 22, 2020
    ...Northumbria University. (1.) Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1989). (2.) eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006), rev'g MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. (3.) Id. at 393-94. (4.) Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg., 65......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT