Quanta Brief Brobins

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Brief of Minebea Co. Ltd. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners

  • Goal of brief is to convince US Federal Court of Appeals to grant a writ of certiorari reguarding the FC decision.
  • This appeal also needs to happen immediately to avoid "patent taxes" on manufacturing.
  • Minebea sells a variety of industrial and electronic components and owns many patents. They are directly effected by the decision as they have lost cases in the past which could be overturned if the court rules in favor of Quanta (full disclosure).
  • Court must apply doctrine of frist sale to all patents.
  • First Sale Doctine-once a patentee has authorized the sale into commerce of any article which embodies the essential features, the patent is exhausted.
  • Companies have long tried to avoid exhausting the patent through contract limitations.
  • US v Univis- established that express disclaimers constitute "conditional licenses" which DO trigger the exaustion clause.
  • The current FC decision ignores this precedent set in US vs. Univis. The decision in Univis was made for a reason and now there are conflicting precedents, the most recent of which produces multiple harmful effects to both the economy and legal sector.
  • FC ruling will have a very detrimental effect on the economy including the legalization of a "patent tax" on manufacturers. Complex inventions which use hundreds of patented items will be taxed on each one, rendering them extremely expensive.
  • Legally, the FC decision to allow LGE to control the use or resale of the patented article after its first sale violates the first sale doctrine.
  • Inconsistant with decision in Univis. The courts described in Univis that licensing schemes were to be condemned and this case represents essentially the same situation.
  • Just because LGE made Intel report to customers that the product they were buying contained articles of a limited scope, it still constitutes a sale to another company.
  • Conclusion: Appeal should be granted on legal terms and immediately for practical reasons related to the far reaching consequences of current FC decision. The FC decision breaks a line of precedents set by the courts and its ruling violates the First Sale Clause. THe patent should have been exhausted under decision in US v. Univis.