Quanta Brief - Kschlax: Difference between revisions

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Kschlax (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Kschlax (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:


1. same patented product may have different value based on use
1. same patented product may have different value based on use
2. multiple embodiments of a patent may have distinct values and applications
2. multiple embodiments of a patent may have distinct values and applications
3. separate claims may be profitable for different parties
3. separate claims may be profitable for different parties
   
   

Revision as of 15:28, 29 April 2011

Brief of Amicus Curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association In Support of the Respondents

  • I. THE PATENTEE'S ABILITY TO GRANT LIMITED LICENSES IS A RIGHT INHERENT IN THE PATENT GRANT

Restricted use licenses exist but must be stated. Freedom of use prevents a patent holder from collecting twice - once in the sale and again in the use of the product. Unless a pay-per-use agreement is reached, use is free and sale is costly, only.

  • II. CONDITIONAL LICENSING IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN MANY INDUSTRIES

Example: "home-use only" dvds are a conditional license. Thus restrictions on the use of patented material are common, and well-established. Applying this to patents is proper because:

1. same patented product may have different value based on use

2. multiple embodiments of a patent may have distinct values and applications

3. separate claims may be profitable for different parties

  • III. PUBLIC POLICY FAVORS ENFORCING CONDITIONAL SALES OR LICENSES
  • IV. CONDITIONAL LICENSES ARE SUBJECT TO PATENT EXHAUSTION WHEN PAIRED WITH AN ABUSE OF PATENT RIGHTS
    • A. Patent Exhaustion Applies In Cases of Antitrust Violations
    • B. Patent Exhaustion Applies When a Patentee Attempts To Limit the Use of an Article to a Geographic Region