eBay Inc. and Half.com v. MercExchange, L.L.C.사건

• 영문명: A Legal study on eBay Inc. and Half.com v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
• 발행기관: 세창출판사
• 저자명: 정연덕(Chung Yeun-Dek)
• 간행물 정보: 『창작과 권리』2006년 겨울호 (제45호), 21~35쪽, 전체 14쪽
• 주제분류: 법학 > 법학
• 파일형태: PDF
• 발행일자: 2006.12.01

영문 초록

A patent troll is "somebody who tries to make a lot of money off a patent that they are not practicing and have no intention of practicing and in most cases never practiced." The topic of patent trolls has boosted up some important discussion in the recent year. Trolls tend to target internet retailers, service, information and news providers who are the end users of the patented technology. eBay suffered a bitter defeat from MercExchange. A federal jury in Virginia found eBay willfully infringed upon MercExchange's patent. The judge ordered eBay to pay $29.5 million in damages but rejected MercExchange's request to issue a permanent injunction against eBay. In March, 2005, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's denial for a permanent injunction against eBay, because they see no reason to depart from the general rule that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged except in the unusual case. In May, 2006, the Supreme Court said in its unanimous verdict. There is no such rule, patent owners do not have an automatic right to an injunction that could cripple the business of an infringer. The proper approach to the question of whether to award a permanent injunction is to apply a four-point test. The plaintiff must demonstrate: That it has suffered an irreparable injury, That remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury, That considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted and That the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

목차

Ⅰ. 서론

Ⅱ. 사실의 개요

Ⅲ. 법원의 판단

Ⅳ. 평가

Abstract

키워드

특허괴물 침해금지명령 영구적 금지명령 자동침해금지명령 patent troll injunctive relief permanent injunction automatic injunction