A friend of mine who is also a senior patent counsel at a major technology corporation passed along his thoughts on the eBay appeal in an anonymous article entitled eBay v. MercExchange: Are YOUR Interests Represented?.
The article, published here on Patently-O, raises a particular issue—that of stays pending appeal. The article argues, inter alia, that the relatively short CAFC docket (~1 year) coupled with the high reversal rate indicate that injunctions should generally be stayed pending appeal.
This approach takes the high middle ground — allowing for injunctions on a regular basis, but not forcing settlement based on district court holdings that would potentially be vacated on appeal.
Notes:
- Cite the article as: Note, eBay v. MercExchange: Are YOUR Interests Represented?, Patently-O, January 31, 2006 at https://patentlyo.com.
- The article can be linked directly at: https://patentlyo.com/patent/eBay_20Article.pdf
- Comments on the article should be directed to me.
More MercExchange & Patent Injunctions
From Patently-O: A friend of mine who is also a senior patent counsel at a major technology corporation passed along his thoughts on the eBay appeal in an anonymous article entitled eBay v. MercExchange: Are YOUR Interests Represented?. The article,…
EBay v. MercExchange: Stay of Injunction Pending Appeal
A friend of mine who is also a senior patent counsel at a major technology corporation passed along his thoughts on the eBay appeal in an anonymous article entitled eBay v. MercExchange: Are YOUR Interests Represented?. The article, published here on Pate
Comments are closed.