Homework 8 (due Friday 28)~jnosal
From Bill Goodwine's WikiJump to navigationJump to search
Brief of Amici Curiae Interdigital Communications, LLC and Tessera, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Quanta arguments in brief:
- If properly viewed this case does not present any issues that would allow for patent exhaustion to be a proper result.
- Licensors and Licensees should be able to contract out their products to the best of their business goals. There should be no limitations on the profit they can make from their licensed devices if they have purchased the product and agreement.
- Prior cases that have been discussed in court do not have the same fact patterns as this case and can thus not be used to examine this case. If they are the case will be analyzed in an incorrect manor.
- Companies do not assert claims on the customers of licensees. This limits the control the patentee has over the use of his patent but does not limit the production of the patent.
- Companies need license flexibility to enter into agreements with manufacturers and other customer groups. If they do not there is a great resistance to the marketability of any product using the patented device.
- Manufacturers have no need for broad licenses and will usually resist entering into contracts for them if there are unnecessary benefits that go along with them.
- Separate contracts and agreements help spur on innovation at all levels of the manufacturing process. If a company is limited in its distribution and profit gain they will be less likely to focus funds on improving the use of the patented product.
- Flexibility of licenses also encourages the licensee to push marketing and enhancing their distribution of the new device that uses the patented product
- Courts should not upset the flexibility of licenses by enforcing old legal practice on modern business methods. The economy is changing and if to many restrictions are in place on new development the innovation will not occure.