Quanta Brief Summary 901422128
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Brief of Dell, Inc, Hewlett-Packard, Co., and Gateway, Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
- All of these companies manufacture computers with Intel microprocessor chips and memory components made by other companies
- LGE, although already having received a royalty from Intel, seeks to extract another royalty payment from Quanta because of the required notice sent by Intel to customers
- Regimen created by the Federal Circuit would allow patent owners to work through the manufacturing chain
- Extract separate royalties at each stage for the same invention
- Purposes of the doctrine of patent exhaustion
- Patentee receives fair compensation
- Provides simplicity in the patent system
- Guarantees peace for owners of patented articles
- Federal Circuit has eliminated these and in doing so created a regime that is contrary to the purpose of the patent system
- The USSC in Univis Lens rejected the idea of patentees collecting multiple royalties at different stages of the manufacturing process
- Federal Circuit misinterpreted Univis Lens
- Purpose of the patent system is fulfilled when the patentee is compensated for the sale of the invention
- No basis for restraining use once the invention is sold
- Federal Circuit has turned the doctrine into an optional limitation that is avoided by altering the terms of sale
- FC confused two lines of decisions
- ”Limitations on a license to ‘’’manufacture’’’ a patented device”
- ”Limitations on the ‘’’downstream use’’’ of a patented device”
- Univis Lens determined that conditions on post-sale uses violated anti-trust laws because they are not enforceable under the patent laws
- The doctrine is a limitation of the rights granted to patent owners
- Doesn’t matter about the intent of the patent owner’s sale
- By obtaining a royalty from Quanta, it would be as if LGE had received no prior royalties from Intel
- Could also then extract royalties from the purchasers of Quanta’s computers
- The notion underlying the Federal Circuit’s doctrine of intent based patent exhaustion is false
- Instead allows a clever patent owner to extract multiple royalties every time the invention changes hands
- This does not serve the purpose of the patent system (promotion of science and the useful arts”
- Instead allows a clever patent owner to extract multiple royalties every time the invention changes hands
- The traditional doctrine requires a patent owner to extract his entire reasonable royalty at one point
- The FC’s rule could spread and have disastrous effects for any component of a computer (and other technologies)
- Conclusion: the petition for writ of certiorari should be granted