United States Supreme Court rules that permanent injunctions are not automatic in patent cases

Abstract

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that a prevailing patent owner in a patent infringement case cannot assume that it will obtain a permanent injunction against future infringing conduct. In the past, courts have generally granted a permanent injunction to the prevailing patent owner in patent infringement cases. The Supreme Court in eBay v. MercExchange unanimously concluded there is no basis in law for treating the equitable remedy of a permanent injunction differently in patent cases from other types of cases. In other cases, the court must make a four-point evaluation before it decides whether a permanent injunction will issue. The Supreme Court was confronted with the issue of how the prior practice of granting permanent injunctions to the party obtaining a court ruling that a patent was valid and infringed and the prior court decisions was to be reconciled with the traditional fourpoint test for establishing the right to a permanent injunction in other types of cases. An injunction is available in the discretion of the court to require a party to either refrain from specifically identified conduct or to compel the doing of some positive act. In a patent case, a permanent injunction would typically compel the infringer to refrain from engaging in conduct which would violate the patent for the remainder of the term of the patent. One who fails to comply with the requirements of an injunction can be found to be in contempt of court and can be fined and subjected to other remedies. In general, the decision as to whether to grant a permanent injunction to United States Supreme Court Rules That Permanent Injunctions Are Not Automatic in Patent Cases