Difference between revisions of "Quanta Brief - 901425018"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "2007 WL 3440936 Supreme Court of the United States. Appellate Brief (Approx. 6 pages)")
 
 
Line 2: Line 2:
 
Supreme Court of the United States.
 
Supreme Court of the United States.
 
Appellate Brief (Approx. 6 pages)
 
Appellate Brief (Approx. 6 pages)
 +
 +
Question: Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent's patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel's subsequent sale of product under the license to petitioners.
 +
*Basically, whether or not LGE's patent rights were exhausted by its license agreement with Intel.
 +
 +
Summary of Arguments: Under the Court's precedent, Inters licensed sales of microprocessors and chipsets exhausted LGE's patent rights. The scope of the question presented is narrowly focused to determine the exhaustion effect of Inters post-license sales under the LGE-Intel license. The scope of the question presented does not encompass other types of agreements that may, or may not, grant or convey patent rights, such as covenants not to sue and releases. Thus, the Court should limit its holding in this case only to the exhaustion effect under a license.
 +
*Based on past rulings, Intel's sale did exhaust LGE's patent rights.  The court should limit its ruling to just the exhaustion and not other types of agreements.
 +
 +
Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in so doing, the Court should limit its holding to products sold pursuant to a license agreement.

Latest revision as of 11:38, 29 April 2011

2007 WL 3440936 Supreme Court of the United States. Appellate Brief (Approx. 6 pages)

Question: Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent's patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel's subsequent sale of product under the license to petitioners.

  • Basically, whether or not LGE's patent rights were exhausted by its license agreement with Intel.

Summary of Arguments: Under the Court's precedent, Inters licensed sales of microprocessors and chipsets exhausted LGE's patent rights. The scope of the question presented is narrowly focused to determine the exhaustion effect of Inters post-license sales under the LGE-Intel license. The scope of the question presented does not encompass other types of agreements that may, or may not, grant or convey patent rights, such as covenants not to sue and releases. Thus, the Court should limit its holding in this case only to the exhaustion effect under a license.

  • Based on past rulings, Intel's sale did exhaust LGE's patent rights. The court should limit its ruling to just the exhaustion and not other types of agreements.

Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in so doing, the Court should limit its holding to products sold pursuant to a license agreement.