that the prospective application of the injunction as to Claim 26 of the '683 patent is inequitable. Indeed, although the Court is uncertain whether the four-factor eBay test must be the appropriate test to apply to the continued application to an injunction that has, itself, been affirmed by the Court of Appeals but which was based on a judgment that has, in part, been reversed or vacated, it is not incompatible with the “principles of equity” that guide both eBay and the Court’s authority to dissolve an inequitable injunction to reassess the continued propriety of the injunction in terms of the eBay factors. Compare eBay, 547 U.S. at 391, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (finding that the four-factor test is guided by “well-established principles of equity”) with Swift, 286 U.S. at 114, 52 S.Ct. 460 (<HOLDING>). In assessing the first eBay factor,
recognizing that the power to alter an injunction was present by force of principles inherent in the jurisdiction of the chancery recognizing the inherent power of courts to ensure an adversarial proceeding recognizing inherent power of courts of appeals recognizing the inherent power of the courts to issue warrants recognizing use of ancillary jurisdiction in subsequent proceedings for the exercise of the courts inherent power to enforce its judgments