Brief of Amici Curiae for Respondent - Eric Leis

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Brief of Amici Curiae Interdigital Communications, LLC and Tessera, Inc. in Support of Respondent

  • Background of Amici
    • Interdigital Communications - producers in the wireless communications industry.
    • Tessera - provider of miniaturization technologies for the electronics industry; involved in the innovation of computer chip technology
  • Summary
    • In this case, the court only considers traditional patent licensing arrangements, but neglects modern technology transfer agreements.
    • In the electronics industry, there are innovators at the top of the chain who create the specific components and then contract licenses with companies throughout the chain to use the product. This involves companies at the top to manufacture the components all the way down to those at the bottom who assemble the final product. This is common practice and has not been considered patent exhaustion.
    • Separate licensing agreements at the different levels of the process do not violate title 35.
    • It is the right of the inventor to receive the full economic benefit of his patent. This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution to encourage innovation. The individual has the right to claim his invention at all levels of production in order to receive full economic compensation for his hard work and innovation.
    • Companies at the top of the chain function only as innovators. They do not manufacture large quantities of the product. The only way to generate a profit is through licensing agreements with manufacturing companies.
    • Financial compensation is essential for continuing innovation. Not only does it fund further invention, but it encourages such. It enables these companies to compete with opponents. Shareholders do not support a company that does not return a profit.
    • The Department of Justice and FTC's antitrust guidelines recognize the benefit of licenses both for the inventor and all others who receive the technology in the chain.
    • Manufacturers do not have the right to negotiate deals for the inventor. They are often involved in competition with other manufacturers and have their own motivations. The patent owner is the only one entitled to make negotiations involving his product.
    • The patent, in this case, is attempting to protect modern licensing agreements.
    • Technology transfer agreements are often not based on royalties for sales. Rather, they take into consideration training and implementation of the new technology. The profit is generated in return for human services to ensure the proper use of their technology.
    • This brief affirms the Court of Appeals Decision.