October Term 2005 · Docket 05-130
Should courts always grant injunctions for patent infringement?
the sides that brought the case seek to limit automatic injunctions. the opposing sides demand permanent bans on infringers.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Phillips argued for the sides that brought the case. He emphasized the need for judicial discretion in granting injunctions.
Mr. Minear argued for the United States. He stated patent rights must consider available remedies.
Mr. Waxman argued for the opposing sides. He defended the right to automatic injunctive relief.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 1-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 1-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 41-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 1-13
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on patent remedies. the sides that brought the case argue courts must weigh all factors before issuing injunctions. the opposing sides claim patent holders deserve automatic bans on infringers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 1-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 1-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 41-21
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 29, 2006.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-25
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want courts to deny automatic injunctions.
the opposing sides want courts to grant permanent bans on infringers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 1-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 1-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 41-21
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue courts must consider market alternatives before issuing injunctions.
the opposing sides argue patent holders deserve property protection through automatic bans.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 1-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 1-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 41-21
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the lower court action was proper.
Justice Scalia asked why the free market cannot solve the problem.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 1-13
Why it matters
This case defines patent remedy standards. It affects how courts balance property rights against market competition. The outcome shapes future patent enforcement strategies.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 1-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 1-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 41-21
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 49-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 49-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-19 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 41-15 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 41-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 45-9 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 45-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-47 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-25 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 27-43 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 27-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 1-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 1-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 1-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 1-13
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 1-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 1-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 41-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 1-33 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 1-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 15-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 41-21 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 41-21
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.