Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In United States patent law, patent misuse is a patent holder's use of a patent to restrain trade beyond enforcing the exclusive rights that a lawfully obtained patent provides. [1] If a court finds that a patent holder committed patent misuse, the court may rule that the patent holder has lost the right to enforce the patent.
Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980), is a 1980 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court [1] limiting the patent misuse doctrine and explaining the scope of the 1952 amendment of the patent laws that resurrected the contributory infringement doctrine in the wake of the Mercoid cases. [2]
Ink, Inc. v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10770 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2006) Holding; A product involved in a tying arrangement is not presumed to have market power for purposes of establishing an antitrust violation by the mere fact that it is patented. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. Court membership; Chief ...
Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.
Patent Eligibility: Medical Treatment: The patent claims say nothing significantly more than apply the law, i.e., apply the natural laws that they describe and that simple additional instruction, by itself, is insufficient to transform an otherwise unpatentable claim into a patentable one. 35 U.S.C. 101: Invalidated attempt to patent natural law.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), [1] is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in which the court appeared to overrule or drastically limit many years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming the patent exhaustion doctrine, for example in Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Princo held that a party asserting the defense of patent misuse, absent a case of so-called per se misuse, must prove both "leveraging" of the patent being enforced against it and a substantial anticompetitive effect outside the legitimate scope of that patent right. In so ruling, the court emphasized that the misuse alleged must involve the ...