# Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C. > Supreme Court of the United States · May 15, 2006 · 547 U.S. 388 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9225762 ## Case - **Full name:** EBAY INC. v. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** May 15, 2006 - **Citations:** 547 U.S. 388; 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 197; 27 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 685; 74 U.S.L.W. 4248; 78 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1577; 164 L. Ed. 2d 641; 126 S. Ct. 1837; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 3872 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts - **Judges:** Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Souter, Stevens, Thomas - **Cited by:** 1,399 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Yellow flag:** Questioned by Solmetex, LLC v. Dentalez, Inc., 150 F. Supp. 3d 100 (2015). - Negative treatments: 3 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9225762 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction in a patent action must show: "(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetaiy damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance … - explaining that, to obtain a permanent injunction, 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 ha… - holding in a patent case that district courts may not “replace traditional equitable considerations with a rule that an injunction automatically follows a determination that a copyright has been infringed,” and requiring courts to exercise their discretion "consistent with tra… - finding that equitable principles require a showing of (1) “irreparable injury”, (2) “remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury”, (3) a “balance of hardships between plaintiff and defendant” justify a remedy in equity, an… - recognizing both that “trial courts should bear in mind ... the nature of the patent being enforced” and that the “potential vagueness and suspect validity of some [business method patents] may affect the calculus under the four-factor test” ## Opinion text Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring. I agree with the Court’s holding 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 *395 governed by such standards,” ante, at 394, and I join the opinion of the Court. That opinion rightly rests on the proposition that “a major departure from the long tradition of equity practice should not be lightly implied.” Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U. S. 305, 320 (1982); see ante, at 391. From at least the early 19th century, courts have granted injunctive relief upon a finding of infringement in the vast majority of patent cases. This “long tradition of equity practice” is not surprising, given the difficulty of protecting a right to exclude through monetary remedies that allow an infringer to use an invention against the patentee’s wishes— a difficulty that often implicates the first two factors of the traditional four-factor test. This historical practice, as the Court holds, does not entitle a patentee to a permanent injunction or justify a general rule that such injunctions should issue. The Federal Circuit itself so recognized in Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858, 865-867 (1984). At the same time, there is a difference between exercising equitable discretion pursuant to the established four-factor test and writing on an entirely clean slate. “Discretion is not whim, and limiting discretion according to legal standards helps promote the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U. S. 132, 139 (2005). When it comes to discerning and applying those standards, in this area as others, “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U. S. 345, 349 (1921) (opinion for the Court by Holmes, J.). --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9225762. Public record. Not legal advice.