Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit\u27s Application of \u3cem\u3eeBay\u3c/em\u3e

More than ten years after the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in eBay v. MercExchange, the availability of injunctive relief in patent cases remains hotly contested. For example, in a recent decision in the long-running litigation between Apple and Samsung, members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit divided sharply on whether an injunction was warranted to prevent Samsung from continuing to infringe several smartphone features patented by Apple. To date, however, nearly all empirical scholarship regarding eBay has focused on trial court decisions, rather than the Federal Circuit. This Article represents the first comprehensive empirical study of permanent injunction decisions by the Federal Circuit following eBay. Through an original dataset on appeals from almost 200 patent cases, we assess the impact of the Federal Circuit on the availability of permanent injunctions. The findings from this study indicate the Federal Circuit is generally more favorable to prevailing patentees regarding injunctive relief than the district courts following eBay. District courts that grant an injunction after a finding of liability are highly likely to be affirmed on appeal, whereas district courts that deny an injunction have a statistically significant lower affirmance rate. This suggests the Federal Circuit is generally inclined toward a property rule rather than a liability rule as a remedy against future patent infringement. It also appears to lend support to claims by scholars and others that the Federal Circuit, as a specialized court with a large number of patent cases, is more pro-patentee than the generalist district courts. Finally, the implications of this and other empirical findings from the study are considered

Patent Injunctions on Appeal: An Empirical Study of the Federal Circuit\u27s Application of \u3ci\u3eeBay\u3c/i\u3e

More than ten years after the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in eBay v. MercExchange, the availability of injunctive relief in patent cases remains hotly contested. For example, in a recent decision in the long-running litigation between Apple and Samsung, members of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit divided sharply on whether an injunction was warranted to prevent Samsung from continuing to infringe several smartphone features patented by Apple. To date, however, nearly all empirical scholarship regarding eBay has focused on trial court decisions, rather than the Federal Circuit. This Article represents the first comprehensive empirical study of permanent injunction decisions by the Federal Circuit following eBay. Through an original dataset on appeals from almost 200 patent cases, we assess the impact of the Federal Circuit on the availability of permanent injunctions. The findings from this study indicate the Federal Circuit is generally more favorable to prevailing patentees regarding injunctive relief than the district courts following eBay. District courts that grant an injunction after a finding of liability are highly likely to be affirmed on appeal, whereas district courts that deny an injunction have a statistically significant lower affirmance rate. This suggests the Federal Circuit is generally inclined toward a property rule rather than a liability rule as a remedy against future patent infringement. It also appears to lend support to claims by scholars and others that the Federal Circuit, as a specialized court with a large number of patent cases, is more pro-patentee than the generalist district courts. Finally, the implications of this and other empirical findings from the study are considered

Higher levels of bodily pain in people with long-term type 1 diabetes: associations with quality of life, depressive symptoms, fatigue and glycaemic control – the Dialong study

Aims To compare reported level of bodily pain, overall and health‐related quality of life (QoL), depression and fatigue in people with long‐term type 1 diabetes vs. a comparison group without diabetes. Further, to examine the associations of total bodily pain with QoL, depression, fatigue and glycaemic control in the diabetes group. Methods Cross‐sectional study of 104 (76% of eligible) people with type 1 diabetes of ≥ 45 years’ duration attending the Norwegian Diabetes Centre and 75 persons without diabetes who completed questionnaires measuring bodily pain (RAND‐36 bodily pain domain), shoulder pain (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index), hand pain (Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index), overall QoL (World Health Organization Quality of Life – BREF), health‐related QoL (RAND‐36), diabetes‐specific QoL (Audit of Diabetes‐Dependent Quality of Life; only diabetes group), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire) and fatigue (Fatigue questionnaire). For people with type 1 diabetes, possible associations between the bodily pain domain (lower scores indicate higher levels of bodily pain) and other questionnaire scores, were measured with regression coefficients (B) per 10‐unit increase in bodily pain score from linear regression. Results The diabetes group reported higher levels of bodily (P = 0.003), shoulder and hand pain (P < 0.001) than the comparison group. In the diabetes group, bodily pain was associated with lower overall and diabetes‐specific QoL [B (95% confidence intervals)]: 0.2 (0.1, 0.2) and 0.2 (0.1, 0.3); higher levels of depression −1.0 (−1.3, −0.7) and total fatigue −1.5 (−1.9, −1.2); and worse glycaemic control HbA1c (mmol/mol; %) −0.8 (−1.5, −0.1); −0.1 (−0.1, −0.01). Conclusions People with long‐term type 1 diabetes experience a high level of bodily pain compared with a comparison group. Total bodily pain was associated with worse QoL and glycaemic control.publishedVersio