{"title":"Brief Amicus Curiae of Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Petition for Certiorari in Samsung v. Apple","authors":"Bernard H. Chao","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3021941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C, 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006) held that that courts should apply the traditional four-factor test when deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction to a prevailing patentee. Certiorari should be granted in this case because the Federal Circuit’s decision dilutes the eBay test by allowing its irreparable harm factor to be satisfied when a patentee merely shows “some connection” between the patented feature and demand for the infringing products. Since the existence of “some connection” does not establish any (let alone, irreparable) harm stemming from the infringement, this Court should instruct the Federal Circuit to require actual proof of causation when applying the irreparable harm factor of the eBay test.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3021941","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C, 547 U.S. 388, 394 (2006) held that that courts should apply the traditional four-factor test when deciding whether to issue a permanent injunction to a prevailing patentee. Certiorari should be granted in this case because the Federal Circuit’s decision dilutes the eBay test by allowing its irreparable harm factor to be satisfied when a patentee merely shows “some connection” between the patented feature and demand for the infringing products. Since the existence of “some connection” does not establish any (let alone, irreparable) harm stemming from the infringement, this Court should instruct the Federal Circuit to require actual proof of causation when applying the irreparable harm factor of the eBay test.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C, 547 U.S. 388, 394(2006)认为,法院在决定是否对现行专利权人发布永久禁令时应采用传统的四因素检验。本案应批准调卷令,因为联邦巡回法院的裁决稀释了eBay测试,允许当专利权人仅仅表明专利特征与侵权产品需求之间存在“某种联系”时,其不可弥补的损害因素得以满足。由于“某种联系”的存在并不能构成侵权所造成的任何(更不用说不可弥补的)损害,本院应指示联邦巡回法院在适用eBay检验的不可弥补损害因素时要求提供因果关系的实际证据。