purtroppo l'unico giornale che ne parla è l'international herald tribune .
data la mia scarsa conoscenza di inglese, non ho ben capito sta questione. In particolare la parte in grassetto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clear victory by eBay settles patent dispute
By Vikas Bajaj The New York Times
MONDAY, MAY 15, 2006
In a significant victory for eBay and other technology companies, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that judges do not have to automatically prohibit companies from using patented ideas or inventions after they have been found to have infringed on the patents.
Acting in a case between eBay and MercExchange, a small patent-holding company that won a case against the giant online marketplace, the high court said that judges must use a four- pronged test to decide if a permanent injunction should be granted against the losing party in patent disputes.
A patent holder, the Supreme Court ruling said, must prove four facts: that it has suffered an irreparable injury; that there are no other adequate legal remedies; that taking into account the balance of harm to both parties, an injunction is warranted; and that the public interest would not be hurt by an injunction.
There have been several high-profile patent disputes in which injunctions have played a significant role, chief among them was the dispute between Research In Motion, the maker and provider of the Blackberry e-mail devices and services, and NTP, a patent holding company. After months of uncertainty over whether the popular service would have to be shut down, the two companies reached a $612.5 million settlement.
The ruling on Monday overturned a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court that hears appeals in patent cases, which had ruled earlier this year that injunctions should be granted as a "general rule."
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the eBay case, which galvanized some of the most powerful business interests on either side of the debate, instead sending the case back to the district court.
Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas chided both the district court and appeals court for not properly applying patent statutes and case law in the dispute.
"We rule only that the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests 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," he wrote.
Microsoft, Intel and a number of other large technology companies supported eBay's position that an injunction preventing the continued use of disputed patents hurts innovation and gives patent-holding companies more leverage in negotiating licensing fees.
But MercExchange, along with the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government and many venture capitalists, argued that injunctions are necessary and useful tool to hold those who infringe on patents accountable for their actions and force them to negotiate.
In the original dispute, MercExchange, based in Great Falls, Virginia, won damages totaling almost $30 million by arguing that eBay's "Buy it Now" feature violates three patents that cover the work of its founder, Thomas Woolston. EBay is disputing the validity of those patents at the United States Patent and Trademarks Office.
EBay and MercExchange each claimed that it would ultimately prevail in the case.
MercExchange noted that the Supreme Court faulted the federal district court, which had ruled against its original request for an injunction, for not properly applying the law.
"We are confident that the district court, when it fairly applies the traditional principles of equity set forth in the Supreme Court's opinion, will grant the injunctive relief to which MercExchange is entitled," the company said in a statement.
EBay said that even when the district court uses the four-point test, it would again determine "that money was sufficient." The company also said the Patent Office reaffirmed in March that one of the patents granted to MercExchange should not have been issued. That determination can be challenged again by MercExchange.
Ebay has said that even if it loses the dispute and a permanent injunction is enforced against it, the "Buy it Now" feature will not be in jeopardy because it made changes to it after the initial verdict in 2003.
Rispondi quotando
