LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.: Guidance on Extending a Patent Holder's Rights to Reach Downstream Parties Who Assemble Components into a Patented Combination
February 28, 2007
In <i>LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.</i>, 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit held that a license to a patent covering a combination of elements, that authorized the licensee to sell components of the invention, but disclaimed a downstream license or implied license to the licensees' customers to practice the combination, constituted a conditional sale, thus defeating the application of the patent exhaustion doctrine. It further held that a downstream point of sale notice that no implied license was conveyed similarly defeated the first sale doctrine. In addition, it held that no implied license could be found on those facts. As a result, the patent holder was free to assert a claim of patent infringement against parties who were authorized purchasers of components of its invention, when such parties assembled the resulting combination. This decision provides the clearest guidance to date on how a patent holder whose patents cover a combination of components can extend its rights to reach downstream parties who assemble those components into the patented combination. This article discusses this case in the context of pre-existing authority on patent exhaustion and implied license, and highlights some of the considerations associated with drafting agreements to avoid patent exhaustion and implied licenses.
Sales
February 28, 2007
The most recent verdicts for you and your practice.
Eminent Domain
February 28, 2007
In-depth analysis of the latest rulings.
Brokers
February 28, 2007
The latest verdicts.
The Year's New Laws
February 28, 2007
This year, several changes to diverse aspects of California real estate law will go into effect, if they have not already done so. A comprehensive analysis of all the modifications made would be prohibitive in these pages, but here are a few key changes that may affect the real estate professional's job, the developer's business or the relationship of the landlord and tenant.
Supreme Court Rules on MRL
February 28, 2007
The Supreme Court of California determined in January that the state Mobilehome Residency Law (MRL), codified at Civ. Code, ' 798 <i>et seq.</i>, does not preempt local rent control ordinances that allow mobilehome park owners to separately charge park residents for property taxes imposed on park land. <i>Cacho v. Boudreau</i>, 40 Cal.4th 341 (Cal.,1/11/2007) (Kennard, J.). The opinion clarified an apparent conflict between the MRL and the mobilehome rent control law then in force in the City of Chula Vista ' a local law similar to many rent control ordinances throughout the State. The decision also resolved a split among the Appellate Divisions as to which items may be considered components of 'rent' for which landlords may raise monthly rents without violating the anti-gouging provision of the MRL.
Husbands May Be Liable for Sexual Abuse of Wives
February 28, 2007
Although the marital exception to rape and forcible sodomy remained on the legislative books, the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Liberta, 64 NY2d 152 (1984), held that the exception ' which had previously shielded men from criminal liability for raping their wives ' was unconstitutional. It was a hard-won victory at the time for victims of such abuse and the feminist advocates behind them, but the extent of the protection the decision offered was limited; it applied only to rape and not to other sexual contacts that would be treated as crimes if perpetrated by anyone other than the victim's husband.
Manifestly Unfair Marital Agreements
February 28, 2007
In December 2006, Justice Laura Visitacion-Lewis of Supreme Court, New York County, held that a modification to a separation agreement was void ab initio and unenforceable. <i>D.M. v. K.M.</i>, 14 Misc.3d 1206(A), Slip Copy, (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. 12/12/06). That case involved a woman who agreed to give up her rights under the original agreement according to which she would have received a large monthly maintenance payment, child support and custody of the couples' children. Although the Special Referee who first analyzed the case considered the modified agreement unenforceable because the ex-wife, an alcoholic, might have been impaired at the signing, the appellate court rescinded the agreement on another basis: The amended agreement was a product of the ex-husband's overreaching.
