Patent Law Practice Center

The ITC’s Injunctive Relief Power

The International Trade Commission’s recently issued decision to ban HTC smart phones from being imported to the U.S. as a result of the  HTC Android operating system infringing one of Apple’s patents. What is interesting is that the discussion surrounding this matter hasn’t been about whether or not there was any patent infringement, but rather the focus has been on the impact of banning HTC smart phones as the means of remedying the patent infringement.

Dennis Crouch, of Patently-O, provides a great summary on the ITC’s role in patent infringement cases and how it’s power to grant injunctive relief compares with that of the federal courts. Here is an excerpt from Crouch’s summary entitled, “Injunctive Relief and the Public Interest at the ITC”:

In federal court litigation, a court can only award injunctive relief after considering the four equitable factors outlined in eBay v. MercExchange. The ITC is not bound by eBay, but is required to consider the impact that an injunction (or “exclusion order”) would have on competition and consumers.  Interestingly, the ITC order follows a recentNYTimes editorial, by Professors Mark Lemley and Colleen Chien who argued for delay in exclusion orders in order to serve the public interest.

Click here to read the article in full on PatentlyO.com.

More on the Bilski Decision….

I just finished watching IPWatchdog give a live analysis of the Bilski decision on USTREAM.  Here are some more of Gene Quinn’s thoughts on the Decision….

— “The Majority relied on a common meaning of processes when deciding that processes could be patentable, but clearly said the machine-or-transformation test could not be the only test.”

— “All nine justices agreed that an “abstract idea” is unpatentable. I don’t see where in the opinion the Court really defines what is an upatentable abstract idea.” (**read more about abstract ideas below)

— “We don’t have a new test from the Supreme Court.  The Court did what it has done before… telling the Federal Circuit you got it wrong, go back and figure it out.  We clearly need more definition from the Federal Circuit as to what is patentable.”

–Quinn concluded “Pure business methods are in trouble.  But, if you write a good quality application that deals with software where there is a tangible element or some kind of physical structure, you’ll be good to go.”

–“I’m afraid the Decision raises more questions than it answers.”

For more on the Bilski decision, tune in on Wednesday, June 30th, at 1:00 pm for  PLI’s Hot Topic Briefing: Bilski v. Kappos: The Supreme Court Rules on Patentable Subject Matter where an expert panel including Scott M. Alter of Faegre & Benson LLP and Douglas R. Nemec of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, co-chairs of PLI’s 4th Annual Patent Law Institute, Gene Quinn, patent attorney blogger and a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review course and John M. White, PLI’s Director of Patent Professional Development as they discuss the implications of the decision, and what it may mean for your practice or your company. (more…)