Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit's Application of eBay

IF 1.1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Washington Law Review Pub Date : 2016-07-29 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2816097
R. Holte, Christopher B. Seaman
{"title":"Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit's Application of eBay","authors":"R. Holte, Christopher B. Seaman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2816097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ten years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 seminal decision in eBay v. MercExchange, the availability of injunctive relief in patent cases remains hotly contested. For example, in a recent decision in the long-running litigation between Apple and Samsung, members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sharply divided regarding whether an injunction was warranted to prevent Samsung from continuing to infringe several smartphone features patented by Apple. To date, however, nearly all empirical scholarship regarding eBay has focused on trial court decisions, rather than the Federal Circuit.This article represents the first comprehensive empirical study of permanent injunction decisions by the Federal Circuit following eBay. Through an original dataset of appeals in nearly 200 patent cases — representing all cases involving contested permanent injunction decisions for a 7½ year period after eBay — we assess the impact of the Federal Circuit on the availability of permanent injunctions. The findings from this study indicate that the Federal Circuit is generally more favorable to prevailing patentees regarding permanent injunctive relief than the district courts following eBay. District courts that grant an injunction after a finding of liability are highly likely to be affirmed on appeal, whereas district courts that deny an injunction have a statistically significant lower affirmance rate. This suggests the Federal Circuit is generally inclined toward a property rule rather than a liability rule as a remedy against future patent infringement. It also appears to lend support to claims by scholars and others that the Federal Circuit, as a specialized court with a large number of patent cases, is more pro-patentee than the generalist district courts. Finally, some implications of this and other empirical findings from the study are considered.","PeriodicalId":46514,"journal":{"name":"Washington Law Review","volume":"92 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2816097","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Ten years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 seminal decision in eBay v. MercExchange, the availability of injunctive relief in patent cases remains hotly contested. For example, in a recent decision in the long-running litigation between Apple and Samsung, members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sharply divided regarding whether an injunction was warranted to prevent Samsung from continuing to infringe several smartphone features patented by Apple. To date, however, nearly all empirical scholarship regarding eBay has focused on trial court decisions, rather than the Federal Circuit.This article represents the first comprehensive empirical study of permanent injunction decisions by the Federal Circuit following eBay. Through an original dataset of appeals in nearly 200 patent cases — representing all cases involving contested permanent injunction decisions for a 7½ year period after eBay — we assess the impact of the Federal Circuit on the availability of permanent injunctions. The findings from this study indicate that the Federal Circuit is generally more favorable to prevailing patentees regarding permanent injunctive relief than the district courts following eBay. District courts that grant an injunction after a finding of liability are highly likely to be affirmed on appeal, whereas district courts that deny an injunction have a statistically significant lower affirmance rate. This suggests the Federal Circuit is generally inclined toward a property rule rather than a liability rule as a remedy against future patent infringement. It also appears to lend support to claims by scholars and others that the Federal Circuit, as a specialized court with a large number of patent cases, is more pro-patentee than the generalist district courts. Finally, some implications of this and other empirical findings from the study are considered.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
专利禁令上诉:联邦巡回法院对eBay适用的实证研究
2006年,美国最高法院在eBay诉MercExchange案中做出了影响深远的裁决,十年之后,专利案件中禁令救济的可用性仍然备受争议。例如,在苹果和三星之间旷日持久的诉讼中,美国联邦巡回上诉法院(U.S. Court of Appeals For the Federal Circuit)的成员就是否有必要发布禁令,阻止三星继续侵犯苹果的几项智能手机专利的问题产生了严重分歧。然而,到目前为止,几乎所有关于eBay的实证研究都集中在初审法院的判决上,而不是联邦巡回法院的判决。本文代表了联邦巡回法院继eBay之后对永久禁令判决的首次全面实证研究。通过近200个专利案件的原始上诉数据集——代表了eBay之后7年半期间所有涉及有争议的永久禁令决定的案件——我们评估了联邦巡回法院对永久禁令可用性的影响。本研究的结果表明,在永久性禁令救济方面,联邦巡回法院通常比eBay之后的地区法院更有利于现行专利权人。在认定责任后颁发禁令的地方法院很有可能在上诉中得到维持,而拒绝禁令的地方法院的维持率在统计上要低得多。这表明联邦巡回法院通常倾向于采用财产规则而不是责任规则作为对未来专利侵权的补救措施。它似乎也支持了学者和其他人的主张,即联邦巡回法院作为一个处理大量专利案件的专门法院,比通才的地方法院更支持专利权人。最后,本文考虑了本研究和其他实证研究结果的一些含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Washington Law Review is a student-run and student-edited scholarly legal journal at the University of Washington School of Law. Inaugurated in 1919, it is the first legal journal published in the Pacific Northwest. Today, the Law Review publishes Articles and Comments of national and regional interest four times per year.
期刊最新文献
Permissive Certificates: Collectors of Art as Collectors of Permissions Contract Interpretation with Corpus Linguistics Stop and Frisk in a Concealed Carry World Public or Private Venture Capital Snake Oil Speech
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1