Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patents No Longer Carry a Presumption Of Market Power in Tying Cases
The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Illinois Tools Works v. Independent Ink, 126 S. Ct. 1281 (2006), reversed almost 50 years of precedent holding that the owner of a patent was presumed to have market power in patent-related tying cases brought under the Sherman Act. The Court noted that Congressional amendments to the patent code explicitly finding that tying was not a per se patent misuse, coupled by the widely accepted view in academia that patents did not inherently lead to market power, had so eroded the legal doctrine supporting the presumption of market power in patent-related tying cases, that a new rule was appropriate. The Court held that in all future tying cases, the plaintiff must allege and prove that the defendant has actual market power in the tying product ' the mere existence of a patent is no longer sufficient.
The District Court Decision
The dispute centered on an arrangement included in license agreements between Trident and its customers, original equipment manufactures (OEMs). The OEMs used Trident's printhead system to manufacture printers that printed bar codes on cartons and paper. In the license agreement, Trident agreed to provide its patented printhead system and unpatented ink cartridges, in exchange for the OEMs agreeing to purchase their ink exclusively from Trident. The agreement also prohibited the OEM or any later distributor from refilling the patented printhead with a competitor's ink. The license agreement thus created a tying agreement basing the sale of a patented product (in this case, the patented printerhead) on the purchase of unpatented product (here, the ink).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?