Quanta Brief - Kschlax: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
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