Supreme Court (Case 05-130), eBay and injunctions

Thanks to the world's media for the deluge on this, but in particular to the IPkat for an excellent collation of views - including those of Duncan Bucknell (link provided by the IPkat).

In essence, the Supreme Court confirmed that a well established 4 step test, for considering whether to exercise the court's discretion and grant an injunction, was to apply to patent infringement.

The court rejected the more mandatory approach of the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit. This court had reiterated its own established approach to patent cases, with injunctions being refused only in exceptional circumstances (an approach very much based on the property rights of the patent owner). The Court of Appeals had in turn rejected a more "expansive" approach taken by the District Court, which considered factors other than the 4 step test to be relevant to granting an injunction.

So in summary, lawyers are happy because the type of test we are familiar with (reasonable criteria to be applied to each set of facts) continues; others are less so because attempts from either side of the patent divide to obtain an approach more consistent with their view of the world have failed.

Interesting to consider how a similar case would fare in UK jurisdictions: permanent injunctions/interdicts are clearly in the discretion of the courts - however, Ludlow v Williams and Microsoft v Plato saw arguments consistent with the Federal Court of Appeals approach (although dismissed on different grounds).