Skip to main content
Article
Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation After eBay: An Empirical Study
Iowa Law Review (2016)
  • Christopher B. Seaman
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange is widely regarded as one of the most important patent law rulings of the past decade. Historically, patent holders who won on the merits in litigation nearly always obtained a permanent injunction against infringers. In eBay, the Court unanimously rejected the “general rule” that a prevailing patentee is entitled to an injunction, instead holding that lower courts must apply a four-factor test before granting such relief. Ten years later, however, significant questions remain regarding how this four-factor test is being applied, as there has been little rigorous empirical examination of eBay’s actual impact in patent litigation.

This Article helps fill this gap in the literature by reporting the results of an original empirical study of contested permanent injunction decisions in district courts for a 7.5-year period following eBay. It finds that eBay has effectively created a bifurcated regime for patent remedies, as operating companies who compete against an infringer still obtain permanent injunctions in the vast majority of cases that are successfully litigated to judgment. In contrast, non-competitors and other non-practicing entities are generally denied injunctive relief. These findings are robust even after controlling for the field of patented technology and the particular court that decided the injunction request. This Article also finds that permanent injunction rates vary significantly based on patented technology and forum. Finally, this Article considers some implications of these findings for both participants in the patent system and policy makers.
Keywords
  • patent,
  • remedies,
  • injunction,
  • ebay,
  • patent trolls,
  • npe,
  • innovation
Publication Date
July, 2016
Citation Information
Christopher B. Seaman. "Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation After eBay: An Empirical Study" Iowa Law Review Vol. 101 (2016) p. 1949
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/christopher_seaman/26/