Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

New Antitrust Considerations for Tying Schemes

By Matthew W. Siegal and Bruce H. Schneider
May 31, 2006

The Supreme Court has recently abolished the presumption that a patent confers 'market power' on the patent owner, ending the presumption of antitrust liability arising from the conditioning of a patent license to the purchase of unpatented articles. See Illinois Tool Works v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1281 (2006). As discussed below, this decision will have wide-ranging implications to the field of patent licensing, where fear of antitrust liability has tended to dampen the creativity of patent license schemes.

Consider that your client, the CEO of the hypothetical Tie-Co Int'l, excitably arrives at your office, eager to talk about his new product. 'We've invented a new peach scent to go into children's lip gloss,' he tells you, 'it blows all other peach scents out of the water. I bet in a year or so, we have over 90% of the peach scent market for children's lip gloss.'

As you share in his enthusiasm, you become edgy as he describes his scheme for leveraging his invention. He explains that he is going to require his customers (lip gloss manufacturers) to buy his entire line of scents if they want his new peach scent. He gloats that the rest of the scents currently in use are fungible commodities and that his potential customers wouldn't object that much to buying the other scents from him, if it means having access to his new patented peach scent. He expects this new arrangement both to increase his already sizable market share substantially and to enable him to raise his prices 5% across the board.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Image

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?