Antitrust Problems in the Exploitation of Patents: A Staff Report ... |
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
2d Cir 7th Cir antitrust laws ANTITRUST PROBLEMS Antitrust Subcommittee antitrust violation Attorney General's National Automatic Radio Mfg Bauer & Cie BYRON G combination patent Committee To Study competition compulsory licensing compulsory royalty-free licensing contributory infringement defendant effect EMANUEL CELLER Ethyl Gasoline Corp exploitation of patents General's National Committee grant-back provisions Hartford-Empire Co Harvey Steel Co Hazeltine Research illegal infringement suit International Salt Co Interstate Circuit involving lamp legality Leitch Mfg license restriction licensee's licensor limited litigation manufacture ments Mercoid Corp Mercoid decision Mid-Continent Investment monopoly Motion Picture Patents Multiple licenses National Lead Co patent grant patent laws patent license patent misuse patent owner patent rights patent system patent-antitrust patented combination patentee's pool practice price fixing process patent profits remedy Report restraint of trade right to exclude section 271 Study the Antitrust Supp Supreme Court Talking Pictures tion tying clause United States patent unpatented switches validity
Popular passages
Page 13 - Whoever sells a component of a patented machine, manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, shall be liable as a contributory infringer.
Page 17 - If the patentee goes further and licenses the selling of the articles, may he limit the selling by limiting the method of sale and the price? We think he may do so, provided the conditions of sale are normally and reasonably adapted to secure pecuniary reward for the patentee's monopoly.
Page 2 - ... for the term of seventeen years, subject to the payment of issue fees as provided for in this title, of the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention throughout the United States, referring to the specification for the particulars thereof.
Page 22 - Combinations between owners of independent patents, whereby, as part of a plan to monopolize the commercial field, competition is eliminated, are within the Sherman Act, for the reason that the restraint of trade or monopoly arises from combination, and not from the exercise of rights granted by letters patent.
Page 10 - Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co. (243 US 502 (1917)), Carbide Corp.
Page 8 - Morton Salt Co. v. GS Suppiger Co., 314 US 488 (1942); BB Chemical Co. v. Ellis, 314 US 495 (1942); Mercoid Corp. v.
Page 13 - No patent owner otherwise entitled to relief for infringement or contributory infringement of a patent shall be denied relief or deemed guilty of misuse or illegal extension of the patent right by reason of his having done one or more of the following: (1) derived revenue from acts which if performed by another without his consent would constitute coniributory infringement of the patent...
Page 8 - Circuit v. United States (306 US 208 (1939)), the licensor was not itself engaged in exhibiting films, hence price-fixing restrictions on theater admissions in the license were for the benefit of the licensees and constituted unlawful restraints, whereas in General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co. (304 US 175 (1938), and 305 US 124 (1938)), and United States v. General Electric Co. (272 US 476 (1926)), where the restrictions were upheld, the Court found that the patentee was deriving...
Page 13 - There is nothing to the contrary in Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Investment Co. (320 US 661, 64 S Ct 268, 88 L Ed 376 (60 USPQ 21)). That case merely applies the salutary rule that a combination patent may not be used to protect an unpatented part from competition. Nothing of that sort is involved here. What the defendants are doing is manufacturing and selling machinery with the knowledge, purpose and intent that it shall be used in a combination which will infringe. The case is one where...
Page 24 - Ever since Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States (323 US 386 (1945)), and United States v. National Lead Co. (332 US 319 (1947)) , the legality of a compulsory licensing requirement has been recognized as settled, but this remedial device appears to engender more resentment than almost any other feature of antitrust law. Thus, the majority of the Attorney General's National Committee To Study the Antitrust Laws, believing that compulsory royalty-free licensing and dedication 16° "differ in kind from...