Jump to content

Talk:EBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
SCOTUS tag
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WP_SCOTUS}}
==Conclusion?==
==Conclusion?==
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."
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."

Revision as of 02:42, 11 July 2006

WikiProject iconU.S. Supreme Court cases Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Conclusion?

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]