In the editorial within the Supreme Courtroom case amazon v. MercExchange, the Are usually Times [May 17, B12] stated:

[A]n spells court [the Courts of Appeal for the Federal Signal, "CAFC"] ruled that MercExchange is automatically entitled to an injunction against The ebay affiliate network.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices disagreed -- not alone with the spells court but with a nearly 100-year-old Supreme Courtroom precedent with patent laws. That circumstance, which been a result of a question over paper-bag manufacturing techniques, held that the injunction is mandatory in almost all cases of patent infringement. Thus chanchaviacircuito.com weighing scales were bent in favor of particular holders, who also could use the threat of an injunction to win disproportionately rich certification deals.

In the "nearly 100-year-old" Supreme Court case, The law Thomas written in the unanimous opinion through eBay:

The [district] court's categorical regulation is also in tension with Continental Standard paper Bag Company. v. Western Paper Travelling bag Co., 210 U. H. 405, 422-430, 28 Nasiums. Ct. 748, 52 Phase. Ed. 1122, 1908 December. Comm'r Pat. 594 (1908), which turned down the legislation that a court of collateral has no legislation to allow injunctive comfort to a particular holder who's unreasonably turned down to use the patent.

The Thomas judgment did not differ with the Continental Paper circumstance, contrary to what the Los Angeles Instances said.

The CAFC did not state that MercExchange was automatically entitled to an everlasting injunction. The CAFC does go through the classic 4-factor analysis for allowing a permanent injunction, and disagreed with the findings of the district court. The CAFC erred in indicating that long term injunctions will issue apart exceptional scenarios.

The Times editorial also mentioned:

The particular office is normally second-guessing per se on a few MercExchange patents as well, which points to an important problem that Supreme Trial didn't treat. The system makes too many bad patents, particularly when business solutions are concerned. Plans that would significantly strengthen
the process have been bottled up in Congress. Now that the Supreme Judge has started restoring the patent morass, lawmakers need to end the job.

From the re-examination matter, I had developed in the Feb . 2006 concern of Smart Property Today:

One motive eBay equipped to the Substantial Court for the public interest factor in the 4-factor check on injunctions was the not sure status on the validity in business process patents. During support, the eBay quick noted, the fact that subsequent to the district courts decision, the PTO had found says of US 5 various, 845, 265 invalid [In re-exam 90/006, 956, filed by simply eBay underneath 37 CFR 1 . 510 on March 5, 2004, after the section court decision of Aug 6, the year 2003 in 275 F. Supp. 2d 695, the PTO issued your nonfinal Workplace Action (signed on Feb. 11, june 2006 but shipped March 24,
2005) rejecting claims 26-29 under 102(e) and cases 1-25 less than 103 above US your five, 664, 111, the same skill found in no way invalidating from the CAFC decision of Drive 16, 2005 (401 S. 3d 1323). ] To claim that this was a far more pervasive problem, the craigslist and ebay brief stated that 74% of the time the PTO discovers "the patent invalid" as well as
restricts statements. The craigslist and ebay brief will not mention that re-examinations occur for only a fabulous fraction of an percent from issued patents. The the ebay affiliate network brief as well cited Cecil Quillen, 13 Fed. Cir. B. J. 1, three or more for "estimating rate of patent verifications by the PTO to be 97%. " Unfortunately, Quillen and his co-author Ogden Webster do not ever
estimated the patent consent rate being 97%. Somewhat, they positioned the Offer Rate inside the range 79% to 97%, with the 97% upper limited rendered ill by their identification in Footnote 17 that the patent may issue the two from a relentless application as well as the corresponding mom or dad application. Although not mentioned inside
eBay brief, Quillen and Webster adjusted their watch of reports of the Grant Rate quantity the following time (12 Federal reserve. Cir. M. J. 33 (2002), discussed in 86 JPTOS 568 (2004)). Inside the eBay simple, the 97% number is usually neither some faithful portrayal of what Quillen and Webster says nor an exact statement on the
patent give rate within the PTO.

A tender news element in the Are usually Times previously had said:

The 9-0 decision in the strongly watched case reversed a federal
court taking over that said judges must generally order a good halt to ordinary home business whenever a firm was discovered to have infringed a valid patent.

The trouble is that there have been only almost 8 justices voting in auction web sites v. MercExchange.