To: barty who wrote (143317 ) 7/5/2006 9:10:41 AM From: slacker711 Respond to This US courts seem to be changing tact here, but I've one question though - you suggest that injunction looks likely for US imports - but what makes this case any different to eBay vs. Mercexchange? see below... www1.jonesday.com Even beyond that, however, eBay may have other repercussions on the international scene: if eBay ushers in an era where injunctions are harder to obtain in district courts, <b.some patent owners may turn with greater frequency to actions in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act. Generally speaking, Section 337 allows the ITC to issue exclusion orders prohibiting the importation into the United States of infringing articles. Unlike a motion for a permanent injunction in federal court, however, such exclusion orders are in rem; they bind all infringers and potential infringers, including foreign parties; and they are enforced at the border by the U.S. Customs Service. More significant, perhaps, is the fact that ITC exclusion orders are available without the patent owner being required to satisfy the four-part injunctive relief test. corporatedealmaker.thedealblogs.com Patent owners who compete in the marketplace will have the strongest case for an injunction, particularly against direct competitors. The inability to exclude infringing competition can spell the loss of precious market share forever. Those who gain no more than negotiating power from an injunction, by contrast, will have a much harder time. Money damages fully compensate your average patent troll; he only seeks money in the first place. And if a troll and an infringer can’t come to terms, it’s hard to argue the public interest favors banishing products from the marketplace. supremecourtus.gov
