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.
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 ...
The court held that the patent exhaustion doctrine did not apply when a patentee sold a patented product subject to a condition other than a price fix or tie in, unless "the patentee has ventured beyond the patent grant and into behavior having an anticompetitive effect not justifiable under the rule of reason."
Ruled that an injunction should not automatically issue based on a finding of patent infringement. Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. - Supreme Court, 2006. Related to "tying" arrangements of patented products. KSR v. Teleflex - Supreme Court, 2007. Concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims. Microsoft v.
Once a patent has expired, the benefits of the invention are to be enjoyed by the public and may not be extended by trademark. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corporation of America: 306 U.S. 618: 1939: Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. 314 U.S. 488: 1942: Patent misuse. United States v. Univis Lens Co. 316 U.S. 241: 1942
35 U.S.C. § 271(b) covers situations where one actively induces the infringement of a patent by encouraging, aiding, or otherwise causing another person or entity to infringe a patent. A potential inducer must actually be aware of the patent and intend for their actions to result in a third party infringing that patent. [4]
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. is the caption of several United States Supreme Court patent–related decisions, the most significant of which is a 1969 patent–antitrust and patent–misuse decision concerning the levying of patent royalties on unpatented products.
Leatherman Tool Group made a multifunction tool that was arguably uniquely new at the time of its introduction. In 1995, Cooper Industries, a competing toolmaker, decided to enter the same market niche with a similar tool. The competing product was originally to be nearly identical to the original, save a few cosmetic changes.