Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on October 3, 2006
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2006 1(12):772-779; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl153
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Authors (2006). Published Oxford University Press. All rights reserved
Practice Point |
Injunctive relief in US patent practice
Legal context. Injunctive relief is available in civil actions in the United States. Patent litigation is no exception and the US patent statute explicitly permits it. Because it is an effective remedy, injunctive relief is commonly sought together with the monetary (legal) remedies which are available to patent owners when enforcing patent rights.
Key points. On 15 May 2006 the US Supreme Court in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange, LLC altered the prevailing practice saying that ‘the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts, and that such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity, in patent disputes no less than in other cases governed by such standards’.
Practical significance. This article will focus on the availability of permanent injunctions in patent infringement actions in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in eBay, Inc et al v MercExchange, LLC.
*Edward A. Meilman is a partner of Dickstein Shapiro LLP and resident in the New York City office of the firm. Mr Meilman focuses his practice on intellectual property as it pertains to patents, trade marks, copyrights, and unfair competition. Hua (Helene) Gao is an associate of Dickstein Shapiro LLP and resident in the New York City office of the firm. Ms Gao's practice focuses on client counselling and acquisition and enforcement of patent rights. Brian M. McGuire is an associate of Dickstein Shapiro LLP and resident in the New York City office of the firm. Mr McGuire's practice focuses on client counselling and acquisition and enforcement of patent rights. Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual authors only and do not reflect the views of Dickstein Shapiro LLP. This review reflects the case law as of the date of authorship. It may not reflect the rapid developments that occur prior to publication.