1AC evidence confirms the Courts solves the case.
Mossoff 20 Adam Mossoff is Visiting Intellectual Property Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, a Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School of George Mason University, and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute; June 25, 2020; The Supreme Court or Congress Must Restore Injunctions for Patent Owners; https://www.heritage.org/economic-and-property-rights/report/the-supreme-court-or-congress-must-restore-injunctions-patent
To rectify this growing policy and economic problem, the Supreme Court should reverse its eBay decision, or at least revisit the case to explain why courts have perhaps misconstrued what the eBay Court was trying to achieve in its decision in 2006. If the Court refuses to do this, then Congress should abrogate eBay and restore injunctions as essential remedies for ongoing and willful infringement of valid patents. In patent law, the Court is only construing the laws enacted by Congress pursuant to its constitutional authority to secure patents with federal legislation.11 See U.S. Const. art 1, § 8, cl 8 (“The Congress shall have Power….To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”). Thus Congress can, as it has in the past, abrogate Court decisions that misconstrue the meaning of the Patent Act.12 See Adam Mossoff, Statutes, Common Law Rights, and the Mistaken Classification of Patents as Public Rights, 104 Iowa L. Rev. 2591, 2614 (2019) (identifying examples in the 1952 Patent Act in which Congress abrogated Supreme Court decisions under the previously enacted 1870 Patent Act). Recently introduced bills, such as the Support Technology and Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience (STRONGER) Patents Act and the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation (RALI) Act, propose to do just this.13 See STRONGER Patents Act, S. 1390, 115th Cong. (2018); Restoring America’s Leadership In Innovation Act, H.R. 6264, 115th Cong. (2018). Congress should enact these important pieces of legislation to restore injunctive remedies to patent owners. This Legal Memorandum explains why the Court or Congress should abrogate eBay. It first explains why injunctions are proper remedies to rectify the wrongs of ongoing violations of property rights. It then explains the eBay decision and what followed as a result of this decision. The Supreme Court created a new test for issuing injunctions, despite its assertion that it was applying a “longstanding” and “historical” test, and lower federal courts, perhaps lacking controlling precedent with a novel legal test, have radically altered historical practices in remedies for patent infringement by no longer granting injunctions to stop violations of patent rights. Last, it explains the economic function of injunctions, which are a vital backstop to all commercial transactions in the free market.