Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Equitable Defenses In Patent Law, Christa J. Laser

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In patent law, “unenforceability” can have immense consequences. At least five equitable doctrines make up the defense of “unenforceability” as it was codified into the Patent Act in 1952: laches; estoppel; unclean hands; patent misuse; and according to some, inequitable conduct. Yet in the seventy years since incorporation of equitable defenses into the patent statute, the Supreme Court has not clarified their reach. Indeed, twice in the last four years, the Supreme Court avoided giving complete guidance on the crucial questions of whether, and when, such equitable defenses are available to bar damages in cases brought at law.

Several interpretive …

Living With Monsanto, 2015 Mich. St. L. Rev. 559 (2015), Daryl Lim

Faculty Scholarly Works

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. signaled the end of an era of seed saving. Farmers must buy new seed for replanting or risk patent infringement. The familiar rhetoric of oppressed farmers belies the fact that Monsanto’s success rests in part on farmers prizing its innovations. Current trends indicate that this reliance on Monsanto will continue. The Supreme Court correctly found for Monsanto. However, future cases must iron out the kinks in the Bowman decision. Despite the Court’s best intentions, inadvertence cannot shield farmers from patent infringement. The Court must also make it clear that patentees cannot use licensing restrictions to claw …

Living With Monsanto, Daryl Lim

Faculty Scholarly Works

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. signaled the end of an era of seed saving. Farmers must buy new seed for replanting or risk patent infringement. The familiar rhetoric of oppressed farmers belies the fact that Monsanto’s success rests in part on farmers prizing its innovations. Current trends indicate that this reliance on Monsanto will continue. The Supreme Court correctly found for Monsanto. However, future cases must iron out the kinks in the Bowman decision. Despite the Court’s best intentions, inadvertence cannot shield farmers from patent infringement. The Court must also make it clear that patentees cannot use licensing restrictions to claw …

Living With Monsanto, Daryl Lim

Daryl Lim

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. signaled the end of an era of seed saving. Farmers must buy new seed for replanting or risk patent infringement. The familiar rhetoric of oppressed farmers belies the fact that Monsanto’s success rests in part on farmers prizing its innovations. Current trends indicate that this reliance on Monsanto will continue. The Supreme Court correctly found for Monsanto. However, future cases must iron out the kinks in the Bowman decision. Despite the Court’s best intentions, inadvertence cannot shield farmers from patent infringement. The Court must also make it clear that patentees cannot use licensing restrictions to claw …

Living With Monsanto, 2015 Mich. St. L. Rev. 559 (2015), Daryl Lim

Daryl Lim

Concerted Refusals To License Intellectual Property Rights, Christina Bohannan, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Unilateral refusals to license intellectual property rights are almost never antitrust violations, as is true of most unilateral refusals to deal. Concerted refusals to deal are treated more harshly under the antitrust laws because they can facilitate collusion or, in the case of technology, keep superior products or processes off the market.

In its en banc Princo decision a divided Federal Circuit debated whether Congress had protected concerted refusals to license from claims of patent misuse. The majority rejected the dissent’s argument that Congress had no such intent and then went on to hold that an alleged concerted refusal to …

Patenting Standards - A Case For Us Antitrust Law Or A Call For Recognizing Immanent Public Policy Limitations To The Exploitation Rights Conferred By The Patent Act?, Apostolos Chronopoulos

Apostolos Chronopoulos

This paper examines the adverse effect of patent ambushing on competitive conditions resulting in the distortion of the standardization process in markets where the effectiveness of competition relies heavily on standardization. The US Rambus litigation serves as a point of departure. In this case, the strategic behavior of the patentee was subjected to both an antitrust and unfair competition analysis. Both approaches display an inadequacy to squarely balance all of the conflicting interests involved. The solution proposed is to apply the patent misuse doctrine as a rule that expresses a public policy defense against patent enforcement so as to ensure …

Patents - Misues Doctrine - Multiple Licenses With Price-Fixing Provisios As Shermen Act Violation, Herbert A. Bernhard S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In a suit for infringement of a moire process patent, relief was denied by the trial court partially on the ground that plaintiff had misused its patent by violating section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff had licensed two other moire finishers to use the patented process. Each license contained a proviso that plaintiff could specify the prices the licensee was to charge its customers for finishing cloth with the patented process. On appeal, held, affirmed. It is a violation of the antitrust laws for a patentee to issue more than one license containing price-fixing provisions. Newburgh Moire Co. …