Quanta Brief 901437068

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 05:09, 29 April 2011 by Lmiller (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Brief of Amicus Curiae Motorola, Inc. in Support of Petitioners

  • Motorola, Inc. is presenting an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Quanta.
    • Motorola, Inc. is a public company that designs, manufactures and sells a variety of telecommunications and electronic products and services.
    • The company owns a number of patents and has entered into a number of licensing agreements
  • Patent license agreements, covenants not to sue, and releases are entered into for different reasons, and the rights granted or conveyed by each type of agreement are, and are intended to be, different.
  • Motorola's main argument:
    • Under the Court's precedent, 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.
    • Therefore, the Court should limit its holding in this case only to the exhaustion effect under a license
  • Two main arguments:
  • I. Motorola Supports Petitioners' Positions With Respect To The Question Presented
    • Intel's sale of microprocessors and chipsets pursuant to the LGE-Intel license exhausted LGE's patent rights.
    • Intel's sale of products that embody essential features of LGE's asserted patents and have no other substantial noninfringing use but to be combined with other articles, the combination of which infringes LGE's patents, exhausts the patents
    • Purpose of the patent law is fulfilled with respect to any particular article when the patentee has received his reward for the use of his invention by the sale of the article
    • Once that purpose is realized the patent law affords no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the thing sold.
  • II. The Court Should Not Decide What Patent Exhaustion Effect, If Any, The Release LGE Granted To Intel As Part Of The License Agreement Has On Products Intel Sold Pre-Release.
    • The existence of the Intel release is consistent with LGE's assertion of infringement against Intel prior to the consummation of the LGE-Intel agreement
    • Some portion of the microprocessors and chipsets placed in the accused products in this case were purchased from Intel when Intel did not have authorization under LGE's patents - at least at the time the sales were made - to sell the microprocessors and chipsets.
    • Motorola respectfully submits that given the narrowness of the question presented and the lack of a developed record below regarding the release, and distinctions with respect to covenants not to sue, the Court should leave the question of what impact other types of agreements may or may not have on patent exhaustion for another day.