Talk:eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Intellectual property

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intellectual property, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Intellectual property on Wikipedia.Intellectual propertyWikipedia:WikiProject Intellectual propertyTemplate:WikiProject Intellectual propertyIntellectual property articles

On July 28, 2007, EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Conclusion?[edit]

Thanks for add a conclusion, but I question part of it: "Thus, the Roberts opinion would seem to lean more heavily in favor of granting an injunction, while the Kennedy opinion expresses more skepticism, particularly where the validity of the patent has also been challenged and remains unsettled."

I know that eBay's challenge to the '265 patent came up in oral arguments, but that isn't the focus of Kennedy's opinion. A better summation might be: "Thus, the Roberts opinion would seem to lean more heavily in favor of granting injunctions in patent cases, while the Kennedy opinion expresses more willingness for district courts to consider the changing nature of patents."--agr 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "particularly where the validity of the patent has also been challenged and remains unsettled" is nonsense. After a trial and after the appeal, the validity of the patent has been settled. Never been to spain 13:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- I agree that the phrase is nonsense, especially since the district courts who have followed Kennedy's concurrence have not even discussed that sentence. Morscs5 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

"that a federal court must weigh the four factors traditionally used to determing if an injunction should issue even where the that court had found infringement of a patent."

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.221.237.7 (talk • contribs)

Trans flag as preview[edit]

this article has the trans flag as its image preview 186.195.11.10 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]