Rebuttable Presumption of Public Interest in Protecting the Public Health—the Necessity for Denying Injunctive Relief in Medically-related Patent Infringement Cases after Ebay v. Mercexchange

The public’s interest in medicine and good health is substantial. However, this interest is harmed when important medical devices or pharmaceuticals, although infringing on valid patents, are suddenly taken off the market after a court grants a permanent injunction. While permanent injunctions were automatically granted by the Federal Circuit before the Supreme Court’s holding in eBay v. MercExchange, courts now have more discretion to deny injunctive relief. Now that courts have this newfound discretion after eBay, the public should no longer expect to be harmed by the sudden removal of medical supplies from the marketplace. Unfortunately, this has not been the course that all courts have taken post-eBay. To protect the public interest, courts should apply a rebuttable presumption in medically-related patent cases, finding that the public interest weighs against granting an injunction. This Comment highlights the necessity for this rebuttable presumption to help protect the public health. Part I provides a brief overview of the history of injunctive relief in patent infringement cases prior to 2006 and the few exceptions applied to deny injunctions. Part II analyzes the eBay v. MercExchange case, from its beginning in the district court to its remand back to the district court after the landmark decision in the Supreme Court. Next, Part III provides an overview of general trends regarding injunctive relief in patent infringement cases post-eBay and also analyzes the courts’ treatment of injunctive relief in recent cases in the medical patent space. Finally, in Part IV expresses the importance of the public interest in medicine and the public health and lays out the multiple reasons why it is necessary that the courts to apply a rebuttable presumption of public interest to deny injunctive relief in patent cases involving medically-related patents. Lastly, a set of hypothetical situations is offered to emphasize the necessity of the rebuttable presumption.