知识产权教授法庭之友在三星诉苹果案中支持调卷请求的摘要

Bernard H. Chao
{"title":"知识产权教授法庭之友在三星诉苹果案中支持调卷请求的摘要","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Brief Amicus Curiae of Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Petition for Certiorari in Samsung v. Apple
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信