Quanta Brief Summary 901431048

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Kary Yergler

Summary of Brief Homework

Reply Brief in support of Petitioners (Quanta)

No. 06-937 March 20, 2007

  • Argues that an authorized sale exhausts the patent and ends the patentee's right under patent law to restrict the use and resale of the sold goods.
  • says that LG claims the license agreement controls the "make and sell" of goods, as opposed to the "use" of goods, and the brief sees this logic as faulty.
  • The brief cites many other cases to argue the point that once the pantentee sells his patented product under a license agreement, they no longer receive the same benefits of patent ownership. The brief is claiming that LG forfeited certain rights during the sell of their patent, and they should not be awarded the benefit of those forfeited patent rights.
  • The brief also points out that other briefs submitted were faulty in that they did not recognize specific governing principles, especially with regards to "manufacturer's licensees" versus "purchaser's right to sell." According to this brief, that distinguishing factor forfeited more than LG apparently knew.

Organizational list of Arguments, as specified by brief:

1. Mallinckrodt principle: a patent owner may not impose whatever conditions it likes on a licensee granted to a manufacturing licensee.

2. Patent owners do not have the same contractual freedom as other property holders, thus patentees are free to use contract law as anyone.

3. Respondent's waiver arguments are incorrect for the same contractual reasons as point 2.

4. a "purchaser's" contract is different from a "manufacturing" contract, see above.

5. Previous cases involving "Univis Lens" is not similar to the current case due to the contractual intent.

6. Respondent uses inaccurate principles to support its case.

7. LG's patent is not a "pure method" patent

8. The petition for certiorari should be granted, in the brief's view