ILNews

SCOTUS rules on patent exhaustion case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the ability of companies to collect royalties after the first sale of a patented product. The case tackled an issue of patent exhaustion that hasn't been ruled on in 66 years.

In a unanimous opinion this morning in Quanta Computer, et al. v. LG Electronics, No. 06-937, the nation's highest court said that longstanding patent law precedent extends to method patents that are often part of high-technology components and products.

"For over 150 years this Court has applied the doctrine of patent exhaustion to limit the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the 22-page opinion. "Because the exhaustion doctrine applies to method patents and because the license authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit, the sale exhausted all patents."

Justices reversed a decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which came in a case focusing on whether South Korean company LG could sue to force the computer suppliers to pay royalties on components they legally purchased from Intel, even though Intel already paid royalties to LG in a technology licensing agreement.

One of those companies sued was Quanta, which argued that it didn't have to pay royalties to the original patent holder because of the patent exhaustion doctrine that only applied to the first sale.

In its ruling, the court rejected arguments that patents are never exhaustible. It relied on precedent that it described as supplying "solid footing" and focused heavily on the one last tackling this issue, U.S. v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942) that involved patents for finished eyeglass lenses.

Indianapolis attorney Todd Vare with Barnes & Thornburg, who wasn't involved in this case but has watched it closely, urged other intellectual property lawyers to carefully review this opinion, whether they represent patent-holders, licensees or those offering patent indemnification.

"This could dramatically change patent licensing programs," he said, though he noted the ruling wasn't a surprise given the court's history in recent years of scaling back patent rights.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT