Quanta Brief Summary 901360293

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 08:22, 29 April 2011 by Dsakamot (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Brief of Amici Curiae Interdigital Communications LLC and Tessera, Inc. in Support of Respondent == This brief is presented by InnerDigital Communications, LLC, a company that...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Brief of Amici Curiae Interdigital Communications LLC and Tessera, Inc. in Support of Respondent

This brief is presented by InnerDigital Communications, LLC, a company that develops technology for the wireless communications industry and Tessera, Inc. a provider of miniaturization technologies of the industry. The thrust of their argument is that the viability of high technology industries similar to those depends on the ability to use flexible licensing strategies for components, systems, and methods at different levels of the manufacturing, distribution, and retail level to use patented inventions to their fullest potential. They set about arguing this point in two ways.

I.Separate Licensing of Components, Systems and Methods at Multiple Levels Is Consistent With the Patent Act and This Court’s Precedents and is Essential to the Economic Health of the High Technology Industry

II.Modern Licensing in the High Tech Industry Often Uses Technology Transfer Agreements That Differ Substantially From Patent Licenses and Should Not be Seen as Raising Any Patent Exhaustion Issues, Regardless of the Decision in This Case

  • Licensing agreements are not always like the ones seen in this case
  • Intellectual property for companies like InterDigital consists only partly in patents as it can also include things like trade secrets or copyright
  • To enable manufacturers of different components to build their devices, they have to expose and transfer a wide scope of their intellectual property
  • This dispersal of intellectual property involving the transfer of technology involves a technology transfer fee and not a patent license fee
  • Technology transfer agreements have not been debated before the Court and because they are explicitly defined as not being patent licenses, they don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the Court’s precedents on patents
  • Because of this, Court should not make a decision that will implicate these technology transfer agreements