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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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
This right to obtain provisional damages requires a patent holder to show that (1) the infringing activities occurred after the publication of the patent application, (2) the patented claims are substantially identical to the claims in the published application, and (3) the infringer had "actual notice" of the published patent application.
The Mercoid cases—Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co., 320 U.S. 661 (1944), and Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 320 U.S. 680 (1944)—are 1944 patent tie-in misuse and antitrust decisions of the United States Supreme Court. These companion cases are said to have reached the "high-water mark of the patent misuse ...