[Ip-health] Compulsory licensing of patents under ebay decision

Wed Mar 21 13:35:23 2007

AS long as the facts and the parties remain the same, relitigation is
difficult. But since this is an equitable matter, as long as there is any
change, the parties can always argue that the injunction is no longer
appropriate and can have the case reopened. And, especially because it is
equity, change is almost inevitable, including time itself.

MD

> Collateral Estoppel bars relitigation of any issue that was essential to
> the original judgment, and Res Judicata bars claims that arise out of
> the same event from the original claim. For a claim to be barred under
> Res Judicata it must arise from a common nucleus of operative fact as
> the original claim (related to original claim in time, space origin,
> motivation ect=E2=80=A6), the original claim must have been decided on th=
e
> merits in its final judgment, and the parties must either be the same as
> in the original action or must be in privity, with a mutuality of
> interest, and a significant degree of control over the first case.
>
> In Ebay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006), the
> Supreme Court upheld the district courts finding of infringement and
> affirmed the awarded damages. The main question presented to the
> district court was whether or not the District court was justified in
> not ordering permanent injunctive to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court
> upheld the district courts decision that the following four part test of
> general equitable principles must be met before a permanent injunction
> can be granted; (1) irreparable injury, (2) inadequacy of remedies at
> law, (3) balance of hardships favoring party seeking injunction, and (4)
> public interest. This is a generally applicable test for permanent
> injunctive relief that applies to all disputes arising under the patent
> act. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that even in successful
> infringement actions, =E2=80=9Ca patent holder=E2=80=99s willingness to l=
icense its
> patents and lack of commercial activity in practicing patents do not
> preclude permanent injunction=E2=80=9D. Id.
>
> To answer your question, although this is a =E2=80=9Cpermanent flow of
> infringing acts by the same infringing defendant=E2=80=9D, the plaintiff =
would
> be barred from bringing any new claim of patent infringement against the
> defendant because the claim of infringement was already decided on its
> merits. However, if the claim arose out of a new form of infringement,
> on a different patent, ect=E2=80=A6, then they would have to argue agains=
t a
> common nucleus of operative fact test to bring the new claim. In other
> words, because the infringing actions are likely to have been related to
> the original infringement in method and motivation, it is unlikely that
> the new claim will pass the test for Res Judicata. Furthermore, even if
> the test was passed and a new claim was brought, plaintiff would be
> barred by Collateral Estoppel from relitigating any issue that was
> finally decided and essential to the original judgment.
>
> However, I am still in law school so I could very well be wrong in my
> analysis, so I would recommend consulting a licensed attorney.
>
> Anne
>
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
> J.D./M.I.P. Candidate 2009
>
>>>> "Luis Villarroel Villalon" <luis.villarroel@mineduc.cl> 03/21/07
> 12:08 PM >>>
>
>
> Interestingly, this principle of equity as a requirement for permanent
> injunctions also applies to copyright cases, therefore this indirect
> granting of compulsory licensing  apply to cases of copyright
> infringement. But, because the application of statutory damages to
> copyright infringement, the price for this type of  "compulsory license"
> might get  really high.
>
> My related  question is, whether on US law, the plaintif could sue again
> and again, based on the permanent flow of infringing acts by the same
> infringing defendant
>
> LUIS VILLARROEL
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org
> [mailto:ip-health-admin@lists.essential.org] En nombre de James Packard
> Love
> Enviado el: Mi=C3=A9rcoles, 21 de Marzo de 2007 11:46
> Para: Ip-health
> Asunto: [Ip-health] Compulsory licensing of patents under ebay decision
>
> --
> [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
> This is one current list of cases where courts have denied Permanent
> Injunctions, under the recent eBay Supreme Court decision.
>
> http://www.thefireofgenius.com/injunctions
>
> On May 15, 2006, the Supreme Court issued its decision in eBay Inc.
> v. MercExchange, LLC, 126 S. Ct. 1837. In eBay, the Supreme Courests
> 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
> governed by such standards."
>
> Permanent Injunctions denied:
> ----
>      * z4 Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F.Supp.2d 437 (E.D. Tex.
> June 14, 2006) (Davis, J.)
>
>      * Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, No. 1:05-CV-264 (E.D. Tex.
> July 6, 2006) (Clark, J.) (described on Michael Smith's blog about
> E.D. Texas proceedings).
>
>      * Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2:04-CV-211, 2006 WL
> 2385139 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2006) (Folsom, J.)
>
>      * Voda v. Cordis Corp., No. CIV-03-1512, 2006 WL 2570614 (W.D.
> Okla. Sept. 5, 2006)
>
>      * Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (trial
> court's permanent injunction order vacated, and the case remanded,
> for complete analysis under the eBay test)
>
>      * Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd., No. 02-73543, 2007
> WL 37742 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 4, 2007)
>
>      * IMX, Inc. v. LendingTree, LLC, No. 03-1067, 2007 WL 62697 (D.
> Del. Jan. 10, 2007) (due in part to patentee's failure to supplement
> the record after eBay, motion for permanent injunction "denied
> without prejudice to renew subsequent to any appeal by the parties
> relating to issue of infringement, validity, or wilfulness")
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> James Packard Love
> Knowledge Ecology International
> http://www.keionline.org
> james.love@keionline.org
> Washington, DC +1.202.332.2670
>
> "If everyone thinks the same: No one thinks." Bill Walton"
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>
> *************************************************************************=
********************************************************************
> La informaci=C3=B3n contenida en esta transmisi=C3=B3n es confidencial y =
no puede
> ser usada o difundida por personas distintas a su(s) destinatario(s).
> El uso no autorizado de la informaci=C3=B3n contenida en este correo  pue=
de
> ser sancionado criminalmente de conformidad con la Ley Chilena.
> Si ha recibido un correo por error, por favor destr=C3=BAyalo y notifique=
 al
> remitente.
> El Departamento de Inform=C3=A1tica del Ministerio de Educaci=C3=B3n le
> recomienda, para el buen desempe=C3=B1o de su correo, lo siguiente:
> - revise su correo diariamente
> - pida confirmaci=C3=B3n de los correos que env=C3=ADa
> - ori=C3=A9ntese de las buenas practicas en el uso del correo
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health
>

Mickey Davis
_________________________________
Prof. Michael H. Davis
Professor of Law
Cleveland State Univ. College of Law
1801 Euclid Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44115-2214
(mailing address: 2121 Euclid Ave. LB 234)
216-687-2228
_____________________________________________________________
Patent Attorney Admitted to Practice Before the US Patent and Trademark
Office Reg.No. 45,863