Quanta v. LGE Reply Brief of Petitioners

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Reply Brief of Petitioners

•Respondent (LGE) claims ability to places limits on license to make and sell is the same as the right to limit how petitioner (Quanta) uses the goods they have purchased, but it is not the same

•In Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., the Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. case was overturned which stated a buyer’s right to use a patented good can be limited or defeated if the patent owner specifies restrictions in the license to use or resell the goods

•Respondent says patentees can authorize licensee to make sales subject to certain restrictions and sue for infringement if the restrictions aren’t met

•License can have restrictions but a sale can’t, and a sale exhausts a patent

•Patentee can’t authorize licensee to sell product without exhausting the patent

•Licenses cannot expand patent rights

•When patentee or licensee sells a product he loses the right to restrict the use of that product

•No distinction between patentee sales and licensee sales when it comes to exhaustion. Both exhaust the patent.

•When patentee sells the patented good, the good is freed from the patent monopoly

•This case is controlled by Univis Lens case because the sales were authorized the Intel’s license

•Univis Lens case held that any noticed restrictions on the use of sold goods are unenforceable because of patent exhaustion

•Respondents and Federal Circuit court believe patentees should be able to impose restrictions on the resale of goods already sold by the patentee, subject only to antitrust laws

•Respondent believes method claims are exempt from patent exhaustion because a method cannot be sold but if this were the case then everyone would make claims method claims so their patent could never be exhausted which would defeat the purpose of the patent system