SherbyNet - /page/wikibook/entry.mu

Micron Document

<!DOCTYPE html>

<title>Patent misuse</title>

</head>

Patent misuse

</h1>

</header>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .ambox{border:1px solid #a2a9b1;border-left:10px solid #36c;background-color:#fbfbfb;box-sizing:border-box}.mw-parser-output .ambox+link+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+link+style+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+link+link+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+.mw-empty-elt+link+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+.mw-empty-elt+link+style+.ambox,.mw-parser-output .ambox+.mw-empty-elt+link+link+.ambox{margin-top:-1px}html body.mediawiki .mw-parser-output .ambox.mbox-small-left{margin:4px 1em 4px 0;overflow:hidden;width:238px;border-collapse:collapse;font-size:88%;line-height:1.25em}.mw-parser-output .ambox-speedy{border-left:10px solid #b32424;background-color:#fee7e6}.mw-parser-output .ambox-delete{border-left:10px solid #b32424}.mw-parser-output .ambox-content{border-left:10px solid #f28500}.mw-parser-output .ambox-style{border-left:10px solid #fc3}.mw-parser-output .ambox-move{border-left:10px solid #9932cc}.mw-parser-output .ambox-protection{border-left:10px solid #a2a9b1}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-text{border:none;padding:0.25em 0.5em;width:100%}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-image{border:none;padding:2px 0 2px 0.5em;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-imageright{border:none;padding:2px 0.5em 2px 0;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-empty-cell{border:none;padding:0;width:1px}.mw-parser-output .ambox .mbox-image-div{width:52px}@media(min-width:720px){.mw-parser-output .ambox{margin:0 10%}}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .ambox{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1246091330">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:22em;float:right;clear:right;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em;background:var(--background-color-neutral-subtle,#f8f9fa);border:1px solid var(--border-color-base,#a2a9b1);padding:0.2em;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border-collapse:collapse;display:table}body.skin-minerva .mw-parser-output .sidebar{display:table!important;float:right!important;margin:0.5em 0 1em 1em!important}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-subgroup{width:100%;margin:0;border-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-left{float:left;clear:left;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-none{float:none;clear:both;margin:0.5em 1em 1em 0}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-outer-title{padding:0 0.4em 0.2em;font-size:125%;line-height:1.2em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-image{padding:0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-top-caption,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle-with-top-image,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-caption{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-pretitle{padding:0.4em 0.4em 0;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.2em 0.8em;font-size:145%;line-height:1.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-image{padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-heading{padding:0.1em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content{padding:0 0.5em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-content-with-subgroup{padding:0.1em 0.4em 0.2em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-below{padding:0.3em 0.8em;font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-above,.mw-parser-output .sidebar-collapse .sidebar-below{border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-navbar{text-align:right;font-size:115%;padding:0 0.4em 0.4em}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:left;font-weight:bold;line-height:1.6em;font-size:105%}.mw-parser-output .sidebar-list-title-c{padding:0 0.4em;text-align:center;margin:0 3.3em}@media(max-width:640px){body.mediawiki .mw-parser-output .sidebar{width:100%!important;clear:both;float:none!important;margin-left:0!important;margin-right:0!important}}body.skin--responsive .mw-parser-output .sidebar a>img{max-width:none!important}@media screen{html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-list-title,html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{background:transparent!important}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle a{color:var(--color-progressive)!important}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-list-title,html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle{background:transparent!important}html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .sidebar:not(.notheme) .sidebar-title-with-pretitle a{color:var(--color-progressive)!important}}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .sidebar{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1202158006">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .law-sidebar .sidebar-heading{background:#aaddff;color:#000}.mw-parser-output .law-sidebar .sidebar-above{font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .law-sidebar .sidebar-below{padding:0.4em;border-top:1px #aaa solid;font-weight:normal;font-size:smaller}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><table class="sidebar nomobile nowraplinks hlist law-sidebar"><tbody><tr><th class="sidebar-title"><a href="United_States_patent_law" title="United States patent law">United States patent law</a></th></tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading">

Legislation</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">

<ul><li><a href="American_Inventors_Protection_Act" title="American Inventors Protection Act">American Inventors Protection Act</a></li>

<li><a href="Invention_Secrecy_Act" title="Invention Secrecy Act">Invention Secrecy Act</a></li>

<li><a href="Drug_Price_Competition_and_Patent_Term_Restoration_Act" title="Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act">Hatch-Waxman Act</a></li>

<li><a href="Leahy%E2%80%93Smith_America_Invents_Act" title="Leahy–Smith America Invents Act">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</a></li>

<li><a href="Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 35 of the United States Code">Title 35 of the United States Code</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading">

Types of patent claims</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">

<ul><li><a href="Article_of_manufacture" title="Article of manufacture">Article of manufacture</a></li>

<li><a href="Composition_of_matter" title="Composition of matter">Composition of matter</a></li>

<li><a href="Machine_(patent)" title="Machine (patent)">Machine</a></li>

<li><a href="Method_(patent)" title="Method (patent)">Method</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading">

Procedures</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">

<ul><li><a href="Inter_partes_review" title="Inter partes review">Inter partes review</a></li>

<li><a href="Markman_hearing" title="Markman hearing">Markman hearing</a></li>

<li><a href="Reexamination" title="Reexamination">Reexamination</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading">

Other topics</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_Patent_and_Trademark_Office" title="United States Patent and Trademark Office">United States Patent and Trademark Office</a></li>

<li><a href="Patent_Trial_and_Appeal_Board" title="Patent Trial and Appeal Board">Patent Trial and Appeal Board</a></li>

<li><a href="Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law" title="Exhaustion doctrine under U.S. law">Exhaustion</a></li>

<li><a href="Patent_infringement_under_United_States_law" title="Patent infringement under United States law">Infringement</a></li>

<li><a href="Patent_racism" title="Patent racism">Racism</a></li>

<li><a href="Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States" title="Term of patent in the United States">Term of patent</a></li>

<li><a href="Manual_of_Patent_Examining_Procedure" title="Manual of Patent Examining Procedure">Manual of Patent Examining Procedure</a> (MPEP)</li>

<li><a href="History_of_United_States_patent_law" title="History of United States patent law">History</a></li>

<li><a href="Biological_patents_in_the_United_States" title="Biological patents in the United States">Biological patents</a></li>

<li><a href="Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law" title="Software patents under United States patent law">Software patents</a></li>

<li><a href="List_of_United_States_patent_law_cases" title="List of United States patent law cases">List of patent law cases</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-navbar"><style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r1239400231">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}@media(prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .navbar li a abbr{color:var(--color-base)!important}}@media print{.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table class="sidebar nomobile nowraplinks" style="width: 18em;"><tbody><tr><th class="sidebar-title"><a href="Competition_law" title="Competition law">Competition law</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-image"></td></tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#98FB98;">

Basic concepts</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content" style="text-align: left">

<ul><li><a href="Barriers_to_entry" title="Barriers to entry">Barriers to entry</a></li>

<li><a href="Competition_(economics)" title="Competition (economics)">Competition</a></li>

<li><a href="Competition_law_theory" title="Competition law theory">Competition law theory</a></li>

<li><a href="History_of_competition_law" title="History of competition law">History of competition law</a></li>

<li><a href="Herfindahl%E2%80%93Hirschman_index" title="Herfindahl–Hirschman index">Herfindahl–Hirschman index</a></li>

<li><a href="Monopoly" title="Monopoly">Monopoly</a> and <a href="Oligopoly" title="Oligopoly">oligopoly</a>

<ul><li><a href="Coercive_monopoly" title="Coercive monopoly">Coercive</a></li>

<li><a href="Government-granted_monopoly" title="Government-granted monopoly">Government-granted monopoly</a></li>

<li><a href="Natural_monopoly" title="Natural monopoly">Natural monopoly</a></li>

<li><a href="State_monopoly" title="State monopoly">State</a> and <a href="Legal_monopoly" title="Legal monopoly">Legal monopoly</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Market_concentration" title="Market concentration">Market concentration</a></li>

<li><a href="Market_power" title="Market power">Market power</a>

<ul><li><a href="Monopoly_profit" title="Monopoly profit">Monopoly profit</a></li>

<li><a href="Profit_margin" title="Profit margin">Profit margin</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Merger_control" title="Merger control">Merger control</a></li>

<li><a href="Non-compete_clause" title="Non-compete clause">Non-compete clause</a></li>

<li><a href="Small_but_significant_and_non-transitory_increase_in_price" title="Small but significant and non-transitory increase in price">SSNIP test</a></li>

<li><a href="Regulatory_agency" title="Regulatory agency">Regulatory agency</a></li>

<li><a href="Regulatory_economics" title="Regulatory economics">Regulatory economics</a></li>

<li><a href="Relevant_market" title="Relevant market">Relevant market</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#98FB98;">

<a href="Anti-competitive_practices" title="Anti-competitive practices">Anti-competitive practices</a></th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content" style="text-align: left">

<ul><li><a href="Collusion" title="Collusion">Collusion</a>

<ul><li><a href="Dividing_territories" title="Dividing territories">Dividing territories</a></li>

<li>Formation of <a href="Cartel" title="Cartel">cartels</a></li>

<li><a href="Price_fixing" title="Price fixing">Price fixing</a> (<a href="List_of_price_fixing_cases" title="List of price fixing cases">List</a>)</li>

<li><a href="Bid_rigging" title="Bid rigging">Bid rigging</a></li>

<li><a href="Tacit_collusion" title="Tacit collusion">Tacit collusion</a></li>

<li><a href="Occupational_licensing" title="Occupational licensing">Occupational licensing</a> and <a href="Occupational_closure" title="Occupational closure">closure</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Cornering_the_market" title="Cornering the market">Cornering the market</a></li>

<li><a href="Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish" title="Embrace, extend, and extinguish">Embrace, extend, and extinguish</a></li>

<li><a href="Exclusive_dealing" title="Exclusive dealing">Exclusive dealing</a></li>

<li><a href="Horizontal_integration" title="Horizontal integration">Horizontal integration</a></li>

<li><a href="Mergers_and_acquisitions" title="Mergers and acquisitions">Mergers and acquisitions</a></li>

<li><a href="Monopolization" title="Monopolization">Monopolization</a></li>

<li> and <a href="Copyright_misuse" title="Copyright misuse">copyrights</a></li>

<li><a href="Predatory_pricing" title="Predatory pricing">Predatory pricing</a>

<ul><li><a href="Price_gouging" title="Price gouging">Price gouging</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Product_bundling" title="Product bundling">Product bundling</a> and <a href="Tying_(commerce)" title="Tying (commerce)">tying</a></li>

<li><a href="Raising_rivals'_costs" title="Raising rivals' costs">Raising rivals' costs</a></li>

<li><a href="Refusal_to_deal" title="Refusal to deal">Refusal to deal</a>

<ul><li><a href="Group_boycott" title="Group boycott">Group boycott</a></li>

<li><a href="Essential_facilities_doctrine" title="Essential facilities doctrine">Essential facilities</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Regulatory_capture" title="Regulatory capture">Regulatory capture</a>

<ul><li><a href="Noerr%E2%80%93Pennington_doctrine" title="Noerr–Pennington doctrine">Noerr–Pennington doctrine</a></li>

<li><a href="Parker_immunity_doctrine" title="Parker immunity doctrine">Parker immunity doctrine</a></li></ul></li>

<li><a href="Rent-seeking" title="Rent-seeking">Rent-seeking</a></li>

<li><a href="Vendor_lock-in" title="Vendor lock-in">Vendor lock-in</a></li>

<li><a href="Vertical_integration" title="Vertical integration">Vertical integration</a></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><th class="sidebar-heading" style="background:#98FB98;">

Competition regulators</th></tr><tr><td class="sidebar-content" style="text-align: left">

<ul><li><a href="Competition_regulator" title="Competition regulator">List of competition regulators</a>

<ul><li><a href="International_Competition_Network" title="International Competition Network">International Competition Network</a></li></ul></li></ul></td>

</tr><tr><td class="sidebar-navbar"></td></tr></tbody></table>

In <a href="United_States_patent_law" title="United States patent law">United States patent law</a>, patent misuse is a patent holder's use of a patent to restrain trade beyond enforcing the exclusive rights that a lawfully obtained <a href="Patent" title="Patent">patent</a> provides.<a href="#cite_note-ipw-1">[1]</a> If a court finds that a patent holder committed patent misuse, the court may rule that the patent holder has lost the right to enforce the patent. Patent misuse that restrains <a href="Competition_(economics)" title="Competition (economics)">economic competition</a> substantially can also violate <a href="United_States_antitrust_law" title="United States antitrust law">United States antitrust law</a>.<a href="#cite_note-Zenith-2">[2]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Definition">Definition</h2></div>

Patent misuse is a patent owner's improper use of patent rights, speaking very generally, to expand the scope or term of the patent. Examples of such patent misuse include forcing customers to agree to pay <a href="Royalties" class="mw-redirect" title="Royalties">royalties</a> on unpatented products or to pay royalties on an expired patent. This particular type of patent misuse can take place without a violation of <a href="United_States_antitrust_law" title="United States antitrust law">antitrust laws</a>.<a href="#cite_note-JOM-3">[3]</a> But it violates such policies of US patent law as the monopoly of a patent is confined to what its claims cover and once a patent expires the public has an unlimited right to practice the formerly claimed subject matter.<a href="#cite_note-4">[4]</a>

Patent misuse may also occur when the patentee's conduct is a violation of antitrust laws. For example, a company buying all the patents in a given field (<a href="Relevant_market" title="Relevant market">relevant market</a>) to stall competition would be misusing patents, and (assuming other statutory requirements are met) also violating section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 18) and section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2). Other antitrust patent misuse includes (again assuming that other statutory requirements are met) a licensor's exercising control over the price that several licensees charge for a product or service; attempting to enforce a patent that the patentee knows to be invalid or not infringed; and selling patented goods on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the buyer will not deal in the goods of a competitor of the seller.<a href="#cite_note-JOM-3">[3]</a><a href="#cite_note-5">[5]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="History">History</h2></div>

In the early 20th century, patent misuse was not yet a well recognized defense to patent infringement, although it had been recognized in <a href="Adams_v._Burke" title="Adams v. Burke">Adams v. Burke</a> in 1873. Courts at that time recognized relatively few limitations to patentees' rights. In 1912, the Supreme Court did not recognize a doctrine of patent misuse in <a href="Henry_v._A.B._Dick_Co." title="Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.">Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.</a>,<a href="#cite_note-6">[6]</a> a case in which a patent license was tied to a purchase of another product.<a href="#cite_note-7">[7]</a> According to the Court, because a patent owner had the greater right to withhold its patented product from market entirely, it had the inherent lesser right to selectively withhold it from people who did not purchase other products.<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a>

This inherent-right doctrine was expressly rejected a few years later, however, in <a href="Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co." class="mw-redirect" title="Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.">Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.</a><a href="#cite_note-Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co-9">[9]</a> In that case, Justice Holmes (who had been in the majority in the A.B. Dick case), now in dissent, argued that because the owner of a patented teapot "may keep his device wholly out of use . . . I cannot understand why he may not keep it out of use unless the licensee, or, for the matter of that, the buyer" will agree to buy his tea from the patent owner.<a href="#cite_note-10">[10]</a> But the majority rejected this doctrine of patentees' "inherent rights." It explained:

<blockquote>[T]he argument [is] that, since the patentee may withhold his patent altogether from public use, he must logically and necessarily be permitted to impose any conditions which he chooses upon any use which he may allow of it. The defect in this thinking springs from the substituting of inference and argument for the language of the statute, and from failure to distinguish between the rights which are given to the inventor by the patent law and which he may assert against all the world through an infringement proceeding, and rights which he may create for himself by private contract, which, however, are subject to the rules of general, as distinguished from those of the patent, law. While it is true that, under the statutes as they were (and now are), a patentee might withhold his patented machine from public use, yet, if he consented to use it himself or through others, such use immediately fell within the terms of the statute, and, as we have seen, he is thereby restricted to the use of the invention as it is described in the claims of his patent, and not as it may be expanded by limitations as to materials and supplies necessary to the operation of it, imposed by mere notice to the public.<a href="#cite_note-11">[11]</a></blockquote>

A year after the A.B. Dick case, in <a href="Bauer_%26_Cie._v._O'Donnell" title="Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell">Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell</a>,<a href="#cite_note-12">[12]</a> the Supreme Court began to shift its perspective by holding that, although patentees could control manufacturing, use, and sale of patented products with license agreements, they could not use license agreements to control the resale price of patented products the patentee sold.<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a> After the Motion Picture Patents case, the tide began to run more strongly against restrictive patent practices.

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Origins_and_development">Origins and development</h3></div>

In 1917, the Supreme Court reversed the four-year-old Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. decision and established patent misuse as an <a href="Affirmative_defense" title="Affirmative defense">affirmative defense</a> to copyright infringement. In <a href="Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co." class="mw-redirect" title="Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.">Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.</a>,<a href="#cite_note-Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co-9">[9]</a> the Supreme Court held that requiring a patented film projector only be used for screening films authorized by the patent holder was unenforceable and constituted patent misuse. The Court concluded that the patentee's attempt to extend its monopoly power beyond the rights that the patent statute conferred on it was inequitable, and because of the patentee's "<a href="Unclean_hands" class="mw-redirect" title="Unclean hands">unclean hands</a>", the court, as a <a href="Court_of_equity" title="Court of equity">court of equity</a>, would not grant it relief.<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a><a href="#cite_note-13">[13]</a><a href="#cite_note-Barr-14">[14]</a> In explaining its ruling, the Court said:

<blockquote>[W]e are convinced that the exclusive right granted in every patent must be limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that it is not competent for the owner of a patent, by notice attached to its machine, to in effect extend the scope of its patent monopoly by restricting the use of it to materials necessary in its operation, but which are no part of the patented invention, or to send its machines forth into the channels of trade of the country subject to conditions as to use or royalty to be paid, to be imposed thereafter at the discretion of such patent owner. The patent law furnishes no warrant for such a practice, and the cost, inconvenience, and annoyance to the public which the opposite conclusion would occasion forbid it.<a href="#cite_note-15">[15]</a></blockquote>

<a href="Carbice_Corp._v._American_Patents_Development_Corp." title="Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp.">Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp.</a>,<a href="#cite_note-Carbice_Corp._v._Patents_Development_Corp.-16">[16]</a> clarified that requiring patent licensees to buy other products as a condition of a patent license ("product tying") was misuse. American Patents Development Corp. held a patent for a dry ice transport enclosure. It required its customers only use their enclosure to transport dry ice from their exclusive distributor. The Supreme Court held that using patents to control an enclosure purchaser's other product purchases was patent misuse. (In a separate case a few months later, the Supreme Court held that Carbice's patent was invalid.)<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a><a href="#cite_note-Barr-14">[14]</a><a href="#cite_note-Carbice_Corp._v._American_Patents_Dev._Co._Patent_Void-17">[17]</a>

The Supreme Court held that patent misuse made the patent unenforceable regarding monetary relief in <a href="Morton_Salt_Co._v._G.S._Suppiger_Co." title="Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co.">Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co.</a><a href="#cite_note-Morton_Salt_Co._v._G.S._Suppiger_Co.-18">[18]</a> Suppiger Co. owned a patent on salt-tablet dispensing machines that it manufactured. The sales agreement for the machines required customers to purchase salt tablets exclusively from Suppiger. Morton Salt Co., a competitor that also sold salt tablets, manufactured and leased dispensing machines that infringed Suppiger's patent. The Supreme Court denied Suppiger Co. compensation for Morton Salt's infringement, holding that Suppiger's patent was unenforceable because it was using it to restrain competition in unpatented salt. The Court said its ruling would not be different if Morton Salt were not Suppiger's competitor.<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a><a href="#cite_note-Barr-14">[14]</a> The Court added that misuse could be found in conduct falling short of an antitrust violation.

<a href="Brulotte_v_Thys_Co." class="mw-redirect" title="Brulotte v Thys Co.">Brulotte v Thys Co.</a>,<a href="#cite_note-Brulotte_v._Thys_Co.-19">[19]</a> established that attempting to collect royalties after a patent expired was misuse. Mr. Brulotte purchased a hop-harvesting machine from Thys Co. Upon purchase, Brulotte accepted a licensing agreement which required annual royalty payments beyond the duration of the Thys patent. When Brulotte realized that the terms of the contract exceeded the duration of the patent, he stopped paying the royalties. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Brulotte and Thys was not enforceable once the last licensed patent expired, because the license extended the term of patent protection beyond the duration of the patent.<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a><a href="#cite_note-20">[20]</a> In June 2015, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Brulotte case.<a href="#cite_note-21">[21]</a>

In <a href="Zenith_Radio_Corp._v._Hazeltine_Research%2C_Inc." title="Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.">Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.</a><a href="#cite_note-Zenith-2">[2]</a> the Supreme Court established that demanding a percentage of a licensees patented and non-patented product sales in exchange for a license was misuse. Hazeltine Research required Zenith pay a total percentage of all its sales to license Hazeltine's patents. The court ruled that this license requirement was patent misuse,<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a> even though it might not be an antitrust violation because the anticompetive impact may have been too slight.<a href="#cite_note-22">[22]</a> This holding reaffirmed a line of Supreme Court patent misuse decisions holding that the competitive impact of a restrictive practice might fall short of an antitrust violation and nonetheless be misuse.

Other forms of patent misuse recognized by courts of appeals decisions but not addressed in detail as yet by the Supreme Court include:

<ul><li>Tying the purchase of unpatented materials as a condition of a patent license, where the effect is substantially anticompetitive in a relevant market over which the patent has market power.<a href="#cite_note-23">[23]</a></li>

<li>Tying one patent license to another, where the tying patent has market power.<a href="#cite_note-24">[24]</a></li>

<li>Requiring a licensee not to make a competitive product as a condition of a patent license.<a href="#cite_note-25">[25]</a></li>

<li>Requiring a licensee to assign back or exclusively license back subsequent related patents, where the effect is substantially anticompetitive.<a href="#cite_note-26">[26]</a></li>

<li>Licensor's giving licensees veto power over additional licenses.<a href="#cite_note-27">[27]</a></li></ul>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Recent_changes">Recent changes</h3></div>

Windsurfing v. AMF<a href="#cite_note-Windsurfing_Intern._INC._v._AMF,_INC-28">[28]</a> held that a patent misuse defense must show that the patentee's behavior hurts competition. This case also clarified that if the Supreme Court had already held a particular licensing arrangement was misuse, the infringer did not have to establish that it was anticompetitive. However, if the Supreme Court had not spoken on the licensing agreement, the infringer has to establish the agreement hurts competition.<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a><a href="#cite_note-Barr-14">[14]</a> A few months later, however, the Federal Circuit retreated from Windsurfing in Senza-Gel Corp. v. Seiffhart.<a href="#cite_note-29">[29]</a> In response to a certified question, the court recognized that "as the Supreme Court has said, the patentee's act may constitute patent misuse without rising to the level of an antitrust violation."<a href="#cite_note-30">[30]</a> Citing the contrary suggestion in Windsurfing, the court explained:

<blockquote>Commentators and courts have questioned the rationale appearing in Supreme Court opinions dealing with misuse in view of recent economic theory and Supreme Court decisions in non-misuse contexts. We are bound, however, to adhere to existing Supreme Court guidance in the area until otherwise directed by Congress or by the Supreme Court.<a href="#cite_note-31">[31]</a></blockquote>

In <a href="Princo_Corp._v._International_Trade_Commission" class="mw-redirect" title="Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission">Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission</a>,<a href="#cite_note-Princo_Corp._v._International_Trade_Commission_and_U.S._Philips_Corp.,-32">[32]</a> the Federal Circuit held that violations of antitrust law involving patents are not always patent misuse. Philips, Sony and other manufacturers developed patented technology to create CDs that could be rewritten multiple times (<a href="CD-RWs" class="mw-redirect" title="CD-RWs">CD-RWs</a>). Philips licensed these patents to CD player and reader manufacturers (so they could develop CD players and readers that worked with CD-RWs). Princo Corp., one of the licensees, stopped paying royalty fees to Philips, but continued to manufacture readable discs using Phillips technology. Phillips filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission and Princo responded claiming that Sony and Phillips were using their patents to suppress competition. On appeal, an <a href="En_banc" title="En banc">en banc</a> the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that Sony and Phillips had not expanded the scope of their patent in a way prohibited by previous Supreme Court cases. Namely, the violation allegedly did not "leverage" the patent at hand. According to one commentator, patent scholars have speculated that this opinion will significantly narrow the scope of misuse.<a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a><a href="#cite_note-Barr-14">[14]</a>

In <a href="Kimble_v._Marvel_Entertainment%2C_LLC" title="Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC">Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC</a>,<a href="#cite_note-33">[33]</a> on June 22, 2015, the Supreme Court refused to overrule <a href="Brulotte_v._Thys_Co." title="Brulotte v. Thys Co.">Brulotte v. Thys Co.</a>, because of <a href="Stare_decisis" class="mw-redirect" title="Stare decisis">stare decisis</a>. The Court pointed out that "Congress has spurned multiple opportunities to reverse Brulotte," and "Congress has rebuffed bills that would have replaced Brulotte's per se rule with the same antitrust-style analysis Kimble now urges."<a href="#cite_note-34">[34]</a> Moreover, the Court maintained, there was not a good reason to overrule Brulotte: "Brulotte's statutory and doctrinal underpinnings have not eroded over time."<a href="#cite_note-Kimble10-35">[35]</a> The patent statute at issue in Brulotte is essentially unchanged.<a href="#cite_note-Kimble10-35">[35]</a> The precedents on which the Brulotte Court relied, like other decisions enforcing a patent's cutoff date, remain good law.<a href="#cite_note-36">[36]</a> And Brulotte's "close relation to a whole web of [other] precedents means that reversing it could threaten others."<a href="#cite_note-37">[37]</a>

In addition, the Court rejected Kimble's arguments that the Brulotte doctrine should be overturned because the practice it outlaws is not anticompetive and it does not violate the antitrust laws. The Court found this argument beside the point: "But Brulotte is a patent rather than an antitrust case," it insisted.<a href="#cite_note-38">[38]</a> Under the Court's legal analysis, "[P]atent (not antitrust) policy gave rise to the Court's conclusion that post-patent royalty contracts are unenforceable—utterly 'regardless of a demonstrable effect on competition.'"<a href="#cite_note-39">[39]</a> Earlier in its opinion, the Court explained that it was well-settled that it was "patent law's policy [to] establish[] a 'post-expiration . . . public domain' in which every person can make free use of a formerly patented product."<a href="#cite_note-40">[40]</a> The majority opinion is thus a strong rebuke to those analysts that seek to make the misuse doctrine a kind of petty antitrust law, in which antitrust principles of analysis dominate over policies unique to patent law; Kimble reaffirms many prior Supreme Court decisions that hold that misuse may be found in conduct that does not violate the antitrust laws.<a href="#cite_note-41">[41]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Congressional_limits_to_patent_misuse">Congressional limits to patent misuse</h2></div>

Congress limited the patent misuse affirmative defense in both 1952 and 1998, resulting in <a href="Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 35 of the United States Code">35 U.S.C.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271">§ 271</a>(d) of the Patent Act.

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Overhaul_of_the_Patent_Act_in_1952">Overhaul of the Patent Act in 1952</h3></div>

In 1952, Congress added provisions to the Patent Act explicitly exempting from patent misuse merely charging royalties, licensing, and suing to enforce patents against contributory infringement. These provisions are in 35 U.S.C. § 271(d).<a href="#cite_note-Barr-14">[14]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="Patent_Misuse_Reform_Act_of_1988">Patent Misuse Reform Act of 1988</h3></div>

In 1988, Congress enacted legislation that narrowed the scope of the patent misuse by creating safe harbors for patent holders in <a href="Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 35 of the United States Code">35 U.S.C.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271">§ 271</a>(d). It clarified that patentees did not misuse their patents by suing people creating products which could be used to infringement patents (contributory infringement). Requiring people to buy another license or product to obtain a patented product is also not misuse, unless the patentee holds "market power."<a href="#cite_note-ipw-1">[1]</a><a href="#cite_note-JOM-3">[3]</a><a href="#cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">[8]</a><a href="#cite_note-Barr-14">[14]</a><a href="#cite_note-42">[42]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Remedy">Remedy</h2></div>

Most types of misuse can be erased (or "purged") so the patent is valid again by abandoning the misusing practice and causing its effects to fully dissipate.<a href="#cite_note-JOM-3">[3]</a> Fraud or <a href="Inequitable_conduct" title="Inequitable conduct">inequitable conduct</a> in acquiring patents, however, is not purgeable.<a href="#cite_note-43">[43]</a>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Criticisms_and_support">Criticisms and support</h2></div>

Critics of the patent misuse defense argue it is anachronistic, that it should be limited by the antitrust rule of reason, and that it has been narrowed to oblivion since 1988 by court rulings like Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission.<a href="#cite_note-44">[44]</a><a href="#cite_note-45">[45]</a> Proponents of the patent misuse defense suggest it could be a defense against litigation brought by <a href="Patent_trolls" class="mw-redirect" title="Patent trolls">patent trolls</a>.<a href="#cite_note-46">[46]</a> Use of this doctrine to contest patent infringement suits by non-practicing entities may require the courts to challenge precedent set in <a href="Continental_Paper_Bag_Co._v._Eastern_Paper_Bag_Co." title="Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.">Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.</a><a href="#cite_note-The_Paper_Bag_Patent_Case-47">[47]</a> The Supreme Court rejected some of this criticism in <a href="Kimble_v._Marvel" class="mw-redirect" title="Kimble v. Marvel">Kimble v. Marvel</a>, which reaffirmed <a href="Brulotte_v._Thys_Co." title="Brulotte v. Thys Co.">Brulotte v. Thys Co.</a> and asserted that misuse is governed by patent policy rather than antitrust policy.

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading3"><h3 id="The_"Nine_No-No's"_Controversy">The "Nine No-No's" Controversy</h3></div>

In November 1970. Bruce Wilson, then a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, gave a speech in Boston that came to be known as the "Nine No-No's."<a href="#cite_note-48">[48]</a> Wilson repeated the "No-No's" speech several more times,<a href="#cite_note-49">[49]</a> and an impression was created that it reflected the Antitrust Division's litigation policy. It has been debated whether the No-No's "reflected actual Department of Justice antitrust policy," despite Wilson's assertion that the so-called No-No's are restraints "which in virtually all cases are going to lead to antitrust trouble because of their adverse effect upon competition."<a href="#cite_note-50">[50]</a> Two other former Deputy Assistant Attorneys General from the Antitrust Division commented:

<blockquote>In actuality, of the sixteen cases filed by the division's Intellectual Property Section between the late 1960s and the late 1970s, only half specifically addressed any of the nine practices. Moreover, almost all of these cases were litigated under a rule of reason rather than per se illegality.<a href="#cite_note-51">[51]</a></blockquote>

Although it therefore appears that the No-No's were never more than an informal antitrust prosecutors' check-list, and were not advanced much less pressed in litigation as a proposed rule of antitrust law, they were widely denounced. For example, during the Bush administration, government officials distanced themselves from them.<a href="#cite_note-52">[52]</a> Thus, in 2003 the official then heading the Antitrust Division spoke out strongly against the No-No's as valid enforcement guidelines.<a href="#cite_note-53">[53]</a> He then spoke of how the "No-No" practices actually often benefited competition; for example:

<ul><li>Tie-ins of unpatented supplies "could minimize the risks associated with the uncertainty that a patent owner may have regarding the value of his/her patented technology."</li>

<li>"Compulsory payment of royalties in amounts not reasonably related to sales of the patented product . . . might be far more efficient, for example, to [use to] base royalties upon the total units produced by the licensee."</li>

<li>"Licensee veto power over the licensor's grant of further licenses . . . may have a net procompetitive effect."<a href="#cite_note-54">[54]</a></li></ul>

Another commentator during this period said with approval, "The Agencies have come a long way since the days of the Nine No-Nos."<a href="#cite_note-55">[55]</a>

In retrospect, the Nine No-No's controversy appears to have been overblown, and the aims of its proponents exaggerated. The Antitrust Division's retreat from it and emphasis on whether the restrictive No-No actually had any anticompetitive effects in the marketplace, may properly be considered in light of the Zenith and Kimble cases' distinctions between antitrust and patent misuse based on their different respective policies. Considered in that light, the No-No's may properly state patent misuse policy. But in large part they did not state a viable antitrust enforcement policy. That appears to be the conclusion drawn in recent papers by Professor Hovenkamp.<a href="#cite_note-56">[56]</a> Thus, the Nine No-No's controversy informs us more about patent misuse than it does about antitrust policy, for Wilson's assertions that the No-No's likely spell antitrust trouble have proven not supported by events.

<ul><li><a href="Copyright_misuse" title="Copyright misuse">Copyright misuse</a></li>

<li><a href="Evergreening" title="Evergreening">Evergreening</a></li>

<li><a href="Inequitable_conduct" title="Inequitable conduct">Inequitable conduct</a></li>

<li><a href="Patent_ambush" title="Patent ambush">Patent ambush</a></li>

<li><a href="Patent_troll" title="Patent troll">Patent troll</a></li>

<li><a href="Submarine_patent" title="Submarine patent">Submarine patent</a></li>

<li><a href="Qualcomm#Apple" title="Qualcomm">Qualcomm#Apple</a></li></ul>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="References">References</h2></div>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .reflist{margin-bottom:0.5em;list-style-type:decimal}@media screen{.mw-parser-output .reflist{font-size:90%}}.mw-parser-output .reflist .references{font-size:100%;margin-bottom:0;list-style-type:inherit}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-2{column-width:30em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns-3{column-width:25em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns{margin-top:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns ol{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .reflist-columns li{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-alpha{list-style-type:upper-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-upper-roman{list-style-type:upper-roman}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-alpha{list-style-type:lower-alpha}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-greek{list-style-type:lower-greek}.mw-parser-output .reflist-lower-roman{list-style-type:lower-roman}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><div class="reflist reflist-columns references-column-width" style="column-width: 30em;">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output cite.citation{font-style:inherit;word-wrap:break-word}.mw-parser-output .citation q{quotes:"\"""\"""'""'"}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-free.id-lock-free a{background:url("./mw/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited.id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration.id-lock-registration a{background:url("./mw/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription.id-lock-subscription a{background:url("./mw/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background:url("./mw/Wikisource-logo.svg")right 0.1em center/12px no-repeat}body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,body:not(.skin-timeless):not(.skin-minerva) .mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon a{background-size:contain;padding:0 1em 0 0}.mw-parser-output .cs1-code{color:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:var(--color-error,#d33)}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#085;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left{padding-left:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right{padding-right:0.2em}.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflink{font-weight:inherit}@media screen{.mw-parser-output .cs1-format{font-size:95%}html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme:dark){html.skin-theme-clientpref-os .mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{color:#18911f}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><cite id="CITEREFQuinn2011" class="citation web cs1">Quinn, Gene (18 November 2011). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/18/patent-misuse-exploring-the-basics/">"Patent Misuse, Exploring the Basics"</a>. Retrieved 12 November 2013.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Zenith-2">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Zenith_2-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Zenith_2-1">b</a> Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_395" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395">395</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/100/#140">100, 140</a> (1971).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-JOM-3">^ <a href="#cite_ref-JOM_3-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-JOM_3-1">b</a> <a href="#cite_ref-JOM_3-2">c</a> <a href="#cite_ref-JOM_3-3">d</a> <cite id="CITEREFSilverman1992" class="citation journal cs1">Silverman, Arnold (1992). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9208.html">"Patent Misuse: Limitations on a Patentee's Rights"</a>. JOM. 44 (8): 54. <a href="Bibcode_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Bibcode (identifier)">Bibcode</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992JOM....44h..54S">1992JOM....44h..54S</a>. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf03222306">10.1007/bf03222306</a>. <a href="S2CID_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="S2CID (identifier)">S2CID</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:138138279">138138279</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="#cite_ref-4">^</a> See <a href="Kimble_v._Marvel_Entertainment%2C_LLC" title="Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC">Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC</a>, No. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-720/">13-720</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_576" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576">576</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2015).

</li>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .bluebook-title{font-style:italic}.mw-parser-output .bluebook-title i{font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .bluebook-lock-free a{background:url("./mw/Lock-green.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .bluebook-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .bluebook-lock-registration a{background:url("./mw/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .bluebook-lock-subscription a{background:url("./mw/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em center/9px no-repeat}.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-error{display:none;color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-error{color:#d33}.mw-parser-output .cs1-maint{display:none;color:#3a3;margin-left:0.3em}.mw-parser-output .citation:target{background-color:rgba(0,127,255,0.133)}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFBernhard1957">Herbert A. Bernhard, Patents: Misuse Doctrine: Multiple Licenses with Price-Fixing Provisos as Sherman Act Violation, 55 Mich. L. Rev. 726 (1957).</cite>; section 3 of the Clayton Act (<a href="Title_15_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 15 of the United States Code">15 U.S.C.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/14">§ 14</a>).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="#cite_ref-6">^</a> <a href="Henry_v._A.B._Dick_Co." title="Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.">Henry v. A.B. Dick Co.</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_224" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 224">224</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/224/1/">1</a> (1912).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="#cite_ref-7">^</a> A mimeograph machine patent was used to tie ink and stencils used with the machine to the machine.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Brian_D._Hill-8">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-1">b</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-2">c</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-3">d</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-4">e</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-5">f</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-6">g</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-7">h</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-8">i</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Brian_D._Hill_8-9">j</a> Brian D. Hill, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/jbtl/vol7/iss2/5">"Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n: Patent Misuse No Longer a Deterrent to Anticompetitive Behavior in the Group Venture Context"</a>, 7 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 361 (2012)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co-9">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co_9-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co_9-1">b</a> <a href="Motion_Picture_Patents_Co._v._Universal_Film_Mfg._Co." class="mw-redirect" title="Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.">Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_243" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 243">243</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/243/502/">502</a> (1917) (holding unenforceable a restriction that a user of a patented film projector must use it to screen only such films as the patentee authorized).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="#cite_ref-10">^</a> 243 U.S. at 519.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="#cite_ref-11">^</a> 243 U.S. at 514-15.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-12"><a href="#cite_ref-12">^</a> <a href="Bauer_%26_Cie._v._O'Donnell" title="Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell">Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_229" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 229">229</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/229/1/">1</a> (1913).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="#cite_ref-13">^</a> White, Katherine <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1221&context=iplj">"A Rule for When Patent Misuse Should be Applied"</a> 11 <style data-mw-deduplicate="TemplateStyles:r920966791">

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output span.smallcaps{font-variant:small-caps}.mw-parser-output span.smallcaps-smaller{font-size:85%}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style>Ford Intell. Prop., Media & Ent. L.J. 671

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Barr-14">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Barr_14-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Barr_14-1">b</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Barr_14-2">c</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Barr_14-3">d</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Barr_14-4">e</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Barr_14-5">f</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Barr_14-6">g</a> <cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFBarr2011">Camille Barr, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/45/2/Note/45-2_Barr.pdf">License to Collude: Patent Pools, the Patent Misuse Doctrine and Princo</a>, 45 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 629 (2011).</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-15"><a href="#cite_ref-15">^</a> 243 U.S. at 516.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Carbice_Corp._v._Patents_Development_Corp.-16"><a href="#cite_ref-Carbice_Corp._v._Patents_Development_Corp._16-0">^</a> Carbice Corp. v. Patents Development Corp., <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_283" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 283">283</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/27/">27</a> (1931).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Carbice_Corp._v._American_Patents_Dev._Co._Patent_Void-17"><a href="#cite_ref-Carbice_Corp._v._American_Patents_Dev._Co._Patent_Void_17-0">^</a> Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Dev. Co., <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_283" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 283">283</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/283/420/">420</a> (1931).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Morton_Salt_Co._v._G.S._Suppiger_Co.-18"><a href="#cite_ref-Morton_Salt_Co._v._G.S._Suppiger_Co._18-0">^</a> <a href="Morton_Salt_Co._v._G.S._Suppiger_Co." title="Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co.">Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co.</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_314" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 314">314</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/314/488/">488</a> (1942).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Brulotte_v._Thys_Co.-19"><a href="#cite_ref-Brulotte_v._Thys_Co._19-0">^</a> <a href="Brulotte_v._Thys_Co." title="Brulotte v. Thys Co.">Brulotte v. Thys Co.</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_379" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 379">379</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/29/">29</a> (1964).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-20"><a href="#cite_ref-20">^</a> <cite id="CITEREFGatesMeier2009" class="citation journal cs1">Gates, S.; Meier, J. (2009). "Brulotte's continuing shadow over patent licensing". Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice. 4 (3): 181–189. <a href="Doi_(identifier)" class="mw-redirect" title="Doi (identifier)">doi</a>:<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjiplp%2Fjpn247">10.1093/jiplp/jpn247</a>.</cite>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-21"><a href="#cite_ref-21">^</a> <a href="Kimble_v._Marvel_Entertainment%2C_LLC" title="Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC">Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC</a>, No. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-720/">13-720</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_576" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576">576</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2015), emphasizing that the patent misuse doctrine is based on policies of patent law (such as the establishment of a public domain right upon patent expiry) rfather than antitrust policies.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-22"><a href="#cite_ref-22">^</a> 395 U.S. at 140.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-23"><a href="#cite_ref-23">^</a> <a href="Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 35 of the United States Code">35 U.S.C.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271#d_5">§ 271(d)(5)</a>.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-24"><a href="#cite_ref-24">^</a> <a href="Title_35_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 35 of the United States Code">35 U.S.C.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271#d_5">§ 271(d)(5)</a>; see Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 461 (1992) ("Conditioning the ability of a licensee to license one or more items of intellectual property on the licensee's purchase of another item of intellectual property . . . has been held in some cases to constitute illegal tying.").

</li>

<li id="cite_note-25"><a href="#cite_ref-25">^</a> <a href="National_Lockwasher_Co._v._George_K._Garrett_Co." title="National Lockwasher Co. v. George K. Garrett Co.">National Lockwasher Co. v. George K. Garrett Co.</a>, 137 F.2d 255 (3d Cir. 1943).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-26"><a href="#cite_ref-26">^</a> U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-guidelines-licensing-intellectual-property#t56">Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property</a>, § 5.6 (1995)("Grantbacks may adversely affect competition, however, if they substantially reduce the licensee's incentives to engage in research and development and thereby limit rivalry in innovation markets.")

</li>

<li id="cite_note-27"><a href="#cite_ref-27">^</a> See United States v. Krasnov, 143 F. Supp. 184 (E.D. Pa. 1956), aff'd per curiam, 335 U.S. 5 (1957); United States v. Besser Mfg, Co., 96 F. Supp. 304 (E.D. Mich. 1951), aff'd, 343 U.S. 444 (1952)' see United States v. Union Camp Corp., Crim. Action No. 4558 (indictment E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 1967); id., 1969 Trade Cas. ¶ 72,689 (E.D. Va. 1969) (consent decree).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Windsurfing_Intern._INC._v._AMF,_INC-28"><a href="#cite_ref-Windsurfing_Intern._INC._v._AMF,_INC_28-0">^</a> Windsurfing Intern. INC. v. AMF, INC <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.leagle.com/decision/19861777782F2d995_11607">782 F.2d 995</a> (1986)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-29"><a href="#cite_ref-29">^</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://openjurist.org/803/f2d/661/senza-gel-corporation-v-b-seiffhart">803 F.2d 661</a>, 665 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-30"><a href="#cite_ref-30">^</a> 803 F.2d at 668.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-31"><a href="#cite_ref-31">^</a> 803 F.2d at 665 n.5.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Princo_Corp._v._International_Trade_Commission_and_U.S._Philips_Corp.,-32"><a href="#cite_ref-Princo_Corp._v._International_Trade_Commission_and_U.S._Philips_Corp.,_32-0">^</a> Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission and U.S. Philips Corp.,<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://archive.today/20131028132652/https://www.courtlistener.com/cafc/TPu/princo-corp-v-international-trade-commission/?q=Carbice+Corp.+v.+American+Patents+Development+Corp&stat_Precedential=on&sort=dateFiled+desc">616 F.3d 1318</a> (Fed. Cir. 2010)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-33"><a href="#cite_ref-33">^</a> <a href="Kimble_v._Marvel_Entertainment%2C_LLC" title="Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC">Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC</a>, No. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-720/">13-720</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_576" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 576">576</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> ___ (2015).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-34"><a href="#cite_ref-34">^</a> Kimble, slip op. at 8-9, 11.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-Kimble10-35">^ <a href="#cite_ref-Kimble10_35-0">a</a> <a href="#cite_ref-Kimble10_35-1">b</a> Kimble, slip op. at 10.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-36"><a href="#cite_ref-36">^</a> Kimble, slip op. at 3-4, 10-11.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-37"><a href="#cite_ref-37">^</a> Kimble, slip op. at 11.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-38"><a href="#cite_ref-38">^</a> Kimble, slip op. at 14. It also said, "The patent laws—unlike the Sherman Act—do not aim to maximize competition (to a large extent, the opposite)." Kimble, slip op. at 15.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-39"><a href="#cite_ref-39">^</a> Kimble, slip op. at 16.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-40"><a href="#cite_ref-40">^</a> Kimble, slip op. at 5. The Court also said that legal enforcement of agreements for post-patent expiration royalties conflicts with the "free market visualized for the post-expiration period" and so "runs counter to the policy and purpose of the patent laws." Kimble, slip op. at 16.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-41"><a href="#cite_ref-41">^</a> See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp., 395 U.S. at 140 (holding that conditions for patent misuse may not violate Sherman or Clayton Acts); <a href="Mercoid_Corp._v._Mid-Continent_Inv._Co." class="mw-redirect" title="Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co.">Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co.</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_320" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 320">320</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/320/661/#666">661, 666</a> (1944) (patent may be misused contrary to purpose of patent laws without violating antitrust laws); Morton Salt Co., 314 U.S. at 491-94 (consideration of Clayton Act is unnecessary to determine whether patent misuse occurred).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-42"><a href="#cite_ref-42">^</a> The specific language of section 271(d)(5), the relevant statutory provision, is: Tying is not misuse"unless, in view of the circumstances, the patent owner has market power in the relevant market for the patent or patented product on which the license or sale is conditioned."

</li>

<li id="cite_note-43"><a href="#cite_ref-43">^</a> Leaffer, M.<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://law2.suffolk.edu/jhtl/docs/pdf/Leaffer_10JHTL142.pdf">"Patent Misuse and Innovation"</a> 10 J. HIGH TECH. L. 142 (2010)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-44"><a href="#cite_ref-44">^</a> Testimony of Robert J. Hoerner <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020711hoerner.pdf">"FTC Hearings on Competition and Intellectual Property Law and Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy"</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120111093423/http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020711hoerner.pdf">Archived</a> 2012-01-11 at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a> (2002)

</li>

<li id="cite_note-45"><a href="#cite_ref-45">^</a> Frankel, Kenneth M. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=92d27184-e349-490c-a4e3-62d336980109">"Patent Misuse After Federal Circuit's Princo Decision En Banc"</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200425/http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=92d27184-e349-490c-a4e3-62d336980109">Archived</a> 2013-10-29 at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a> The AIPLA Antitrust News February 2011

</li>

<li id="cite_note-46"><a href="#cite_ref-46">^</a> Gene Quinn <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/08/04/indicia-of-extortion-federal-circuit-slams-patent-troll/id=18568/">"Indicia of Extortion – Federal Circuit Slams Patent Troll"</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-The_Paper_Bag_Patent_Case-47"><a href="#cite_ref-The_Paper_Bag_Patent_Case_47-0">^</a> <a href="Continental_Paper_Bag_Co._v._Eastern_Paper_Bag_Co." title="Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.">Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.</a>, <a href="List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases%2C_volume_210" title="List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 210">210</a> <a href="United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/210/405/">405</a> (1908).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-48"><a href="#cite_ref-48">^</a> Bruce B. Wilson, Deputy Ass't Atty. Gen., Antitrust Div., Dep't of Justice, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.rtlaw.com/licensing/pdf/13.pdf">Patent and Know-How License Agreements: Field of Use, Territorial, Price and Quantity Restrictions</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140124181601/http://www.rtlaw.com/licensing/pdf/13.pdf">Archived</a> 2014-01-24 at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a>, Remarks Before the Fourth New England Antitrust Conference 9 (Nov. 6, 1970). The Nine No-Nos were:

<dl><dd>(1) tying the purchase of unpatented materials as a condition of the license (tie-ins),</dd>

<dd>(2) requiring the licensee to assign back subsequent patents ("assignment grant-backs"),</dd>

<dd>(3) restricting the right of the purchaser of the product in the resale of the product (post-sale restraints),</dd>

<dd>(4) restricting the licensee's ability to deal in products outside the scope of the patent ("tie-outs"),</dd>

<dd>(5) a licensor's agreement not to grant further licenses without the consent of the licensee ("veto-power" clauses),</dd>

<dd>(6) mandatory package licenses,</dd>

<dd>(7) royalty provisions not reasonably related to the licensee's sales (coerced "total-sales royalties"),</dd>

<dd>(8) restrictions on a licensee's use of a product made by a patented process, and</dd>

<dd>(9) minimum resale price provisions for the licensed products (price fixing).</dd></dl>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-49"><a href="#cite_ref-49">^</a> See Wilson, "Is The Past Prologue, or Where Do We Go From Here?" (Detroit Sept. 21, 1972), reprinted in 5 Trade Reg. Rep. 50, 146; Wilson, :"Law on Licensing Practices: Myth or Reality? or Straight Talk from 'Alice in Wonderland,' " (Washington DC Jan. 21, 1975).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-50"><a href="#cite_ref-50">^</a> Wilson, Straight Talk from 'Alice in Wonderland,'  (Jan. 21, 1975) at 9.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-51"><a href="#cite_ref-51">^</a> Richard Gilbert and Carl Shapiro, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/ninenono.pdf">Antitrust Issues in the Licensing of Intellectual Property: The Nine No-No's Meet the Nineties</a>, 13 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Microeconomics) 283, 286 (1997).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-52"><a href="#cite_ref-52">^</a> It has been asserted that as early as 1981 the "Department of Justice repudiated the 'Nine No-No's.' " Am. Bar Ass'n, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://books.google.com/books?id=oT07hNxzMwQC&dq=nine+no-nos+antitrust&pg=PA1082">Antitrust Law Developments</a> 1082 (6th ed. 2007) (citing a speech by a Reagan Administration official).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-53"><a href="#cite_ref-53">^</a> See R. Hewitt Pate, Acting Assistant Attorney General/ Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/antitrust-and-intellectual-property">Antitrust and Intellectual Property</a>, Address Before American Intellectual Property Law Association (Jan. 24, 2004).

</li>

<li id="cite_note-54"><a href="#cite_ref-54">^</a> Pate.

</li>

<li id="cite_note-55"><a href="#cite_ref-55">^</a> George G. Gordon, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.dechert.com/files/Publication/e80c9457-6a80-4838-a3cc-f316d873f197/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/41de8186-c3e6-4ece-bf2d-f4a760f20569/Analyzing%20IP%20License%20-%20GGordon%205-02.PDF">Analyzing IP License Restrictions Under The Antitrust Laws: A General Outline Of Issues(June 6, 2002).</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160304135837/https://www.dechert.com/files/Publication/e80c9457-6a80-4838-a3cc-f316d873f197/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/41de8186-c3e6-4ece-bf2d-f4a760f20569/Analyzing%20IP%20License%20-%20GGordon%205-02.PDF">Archived</a> March 4, 2016, at the <a href="Wayback_Machine" title="Wayback Machine">Wayback Machine</a>

</li>

<li id="cite_note-56"><a href="#cite_ref-56">^</a> See Herbert Hovenkamp, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2015/07/7-Hovenkamp.pdf">Antitrust and the Patent System: A Reexamination</a>, 76 Ohio St. L.J. 467, 468 (2015) (asserting that patent misuse doctrine "migrated into antitrust law"); see also Herbert Hovenkamp, The Opening of American Law: Neoclassical Legal Thought, 1870‒1970, at 200–03 (2015).

</li>

</ol></div>

<div class="mw-heading mw-heading2"><h2 id="Further_reading">Further reading</h2></div>

<ul><li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFBurchfiel1991">Kenneth J. Burchfiel, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v04/04HarvJLTech001.pdf">Four Questionable Rationales for the Patent Misuse Doctrine</a>, 4 <a href="Harvard_Journal_of_Law_%26_Technology" title="Harvard Journal of Law & Technology">Harv. J. L. & Tech.</a> 1 (1991).</cite>.</li>

<li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFCotter2011">Thomas Cotter, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol12/iss2/4/">Four Questionable Rationales for the Patent Misuse Doctrine</a>, 12 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 457 (2011).</cite>.</li>

<li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFLeaffer2010">Marshall Leaffer, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/831">Patent Misuse and Innovation</a>, 10 J. High Tech. L. 142 (2010).</cite>.</li>

<li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFLemley1990">Mark A. Lemley, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol78/iss6/5/">The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine</a>, 78 Cal. L. Rev. 1599 (1990).</cite>.</li>

<li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFMaffei1969">Thomas Maffei, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol11/iss1/4">The Patent Misuse Doctrine: A Balance of Patent Rights and the Public Interest</a>, 11 B.C.L. Rev. 46 (1969).</cite>.</li>

<li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFMillemann2011">Audrey Millemann, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.theiplawblog.com/2011/01/articles/patent-law/patent-misuse-becomes-narrower/">Patent Misuse Becomes Narrower</a>, The IP Law Blog (January 20, 2011).</cite></li>

<li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFPinkus2012">Craig Pinkus, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160826003723/https://medialawblog.boselaw.com/2012/02/03/patent-misuse-defense-and-the-future-of-traditional-publishing/">Patent Misuse Defense and the Future of Traditional Publishing</a>, Bose Media Law Blog (February 3, 2012).</cite></li>

<li><cite class="csblue" id="CITEREFQuinn2011">Gene Quinn, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/18/patent-misuse-exploring-the-basics/id=20460/">Patent Misuse, Exploring the Basics</a>, IPWatchdog (November 18, 2011).</cite></li>

<li>Bruce B. Wilson, Deputy Ass't Atty. Gen., Antitrust Div., Dep't of Justice, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140124181601/http://www.rtlaw.com/licensing/pdf/13.pdf">Patent and Know-How License Agreements: Field of Use, Territorial, Price and Quantity Restrictions</a>, Remarks Before the Fourth New England Antitrust Conference 9 (Nov. 6, 1970) (the so-called Nine No-Nos speech).</li></ul>

/* start https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

.mw-parser-output .navbox{box-sizing:border-box;border:1px solid #a2a9b1;width:100%;clear:both;font-size:88%;text-align:center;padding:1px;margin:1em auto 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbox{margin-top:0}.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox+.navbox-styles+.navbox{margin-top:-1px}.mw-parser-output .navbox-inner,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{width:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-title,.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow{padding:0.25em 1em;line-height:1.5em;text-align:center}.mw-parser-output .navbox-group{white-space:nowrap;text-align:right}.mw-parser-output .navbox,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup{background-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list{line-height:1.5em;border-color:#fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-list-with-group{text-align:left;border-left-width:2px;border-left-style:solid}.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-group,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-image,.mw-parser-output tr+tr>.navbox-list{border-top:2px solid #fdfdfd}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title{background-color:#ccf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-abovebelow,.mw-parser-output .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-title{background-color:#ddf}.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-group,.mw-parser-output .navbox-subgroup .navbox-abovebelow{background-color:#e6e6ff}.mw-parser-output .navbox-even{background-color:#f7f7f7}.mw-parser-output .navbox-odd{background-color:transparent}.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox .hlist td ul,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .navbox td.hlist ul{padding:0.125em 0}.mw-parser-output .navbox .navbar{display:block;font-size:100%}.mw-parser-output .navbox-title .navbar{float:left;text-align:left;margin-right:0.5em}body.skin--responsive .mw-parser-output .navbox-image img{max-width:none!important}@media print{body.ns-0 .mw-parser-output .navbox{display:none!important}}

/* end https://en.wikipedia.org/ */

</style></div><div role="navigation" class="navbox" aria-labelledby="United_States_antitrust_law804" style="padding:3px"><table class="nowraplinks hlist mw-collapsible mw-collapsed navbox-inner" style="border-spacing:0;background:transparent;color:inherit"><tbody><tr><th scope="col" class="navbox-title" colspan="2"><div id="United_States_antitrust_law804" style="font-size:114%;margin:0 4em"><a href="United_States_antitrust_law" title="United States antitrust law">United States antitrust law</a></div></th></tr><tr><td class="navbox-abovebelow" colspan="2"><div>

<ul><li><a href="History_of_United_States_antitrust_law" title="History of United States antitrust law">History</a></li>

<li><a href="Interstate_Commerce_Commission" title="Interstate Commerce Commission">Interstate Commerce Commission</a> (1887–1996)</li>

<li><a href="Bureau_of_Corporations" title="Bureau of Corporations">Bureau of Corporations</a> (1903–1915)</li>

<li><a href="Pujo_Committee" title="Pujo Committee">Pujo Committee</a> (1912–1913)</li>

<li><a href="Federal_Trade_Commission" title="Federal Trade Commission">Federal Trade Commission</a> (1914–)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_Department_of_Justice_Antitrust_Division" title="United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division">U.S. Justice Department Antitrust Division</a> (1919–)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_Senate_Judiciary_Subcommittee_on_Competition_Policy%2C_Antitrust_and_Consumer_Rights" class="mw-redirect" title="United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust and Consumer Rights">U.S. Senate Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee</a></li>

<li><a href="United_States_House_Judiciary_Subcommittee_on_the_Administrative_State%2C_Regulatory_Reform%2C_and_Antitrust" title="United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust">U.S. House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Statutes and regulations</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Interstate_Commerce_Act_of_1887" title="Interstate Commerce Act of 1887">Interstate Commerce Act of 1887</a></li>

<li><a href="Sherman_Antitrust_Act" title="Sherman Antitrust Act">Sherman Antitrust Act</a> (1890)</li>

<li><a href="Elkins_Act" title="Elkins Act">Elkins Act</a> (1903)</li>

<li><a href="Expediting_Act" title="Expediting Act">Expediting Act</a> (1903)</li>

<li><a href="Publicity_In_Taking_Evidence_Act" title="Publicity In Taking Evidence Act">Publicity In Taking Evidence Act</a> (1913)</li>

<li><a href="Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914" title="Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914">Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914</a></li>

<li><a href="Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914" title="Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914">Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914</a></li>

<li><a href="Webb%E2%80%93Pomerene_Act" title="Webb–Pomerene Act">Webb–Pomerene Act</a> (1918)</li>

<li><a href="Willis_Graham_Act" title="Willis Graham Act">Willis Graham Act</a> (1921)</li>

<li><a href="Capper%E2%80%93Volstead_Act" title="Capper–Volstead Act">Capper–Volstead Act</a> (1922)</li>

<li><a href="Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act" title="Robinson–Patman Act">Robinson–Patman Act</a> (1936)</li>

<li><a href="Wheeler%E2%80%93Lea_Act" title="Wheeler–Lea Act">Wheeler–Lea Act</a> (1938)</li>

<li><a href="McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act" title="McCarran–Ferguson Act">McCarran–Ferguson Act</a> (1945)</li>

<li><a href="Celler%E2%80%93Kefauver_Act" title="Celler–Kefauver Act">Celler–Kefauver Act</a> (1950)</li>

<li><a href="Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961" title="Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961">Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961</a></li>

<li><a href="Newspaper_Preservation_Act_of_1970" title="Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970">Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970</a></li>

<li><a href="Tunney_Act" title="Tunney Act">Tunney Act</a> (1974)</li>

<li><a href="Hart%E2%80%93Scott%E2%80%93Rodino_Antitrust_Improvements_Act" title="Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act">Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act</a> (1976)</li>

<li><a href="National_Cooperative_Research_and_Production_Act" title="National Cooperative Research and Production Act">National Cooperative Research and Production Act</a> (1993)</li>

<li><a href="Executive_Order_14036" title="Executive Order 14036">Executive Order 14036</a> (2021)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Supreme Court case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em"></div><table class="nowraplinks navbox-subgroup" style="border-spacing:0"><tbody><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Sherman_Antitrust_Act" title="Sherman Antitrust Act">Sherman Antitrust Act</a> Section 1 case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_v._American_Tobacco_Co." title="United States v. American Tobacco Co.">United States v. American Tobacco Co.</a> (1911)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Socony-Vacuum_Oil_Co." title="United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.">United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.</a> (1940)</li>

<li><a href="International_Salt_Co._v._United_States" title="International Salt Co. v. United States">International Salt Co. v. United States</a> (1947)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Line_Material_Co." title="United States v. Line Material Co.">United States v. Line Material Co.</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="Kiefer-Stewart_Co._v._Seagram_%26_Sons%2C_Inc." title="Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc.">Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc.</a> (1951)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._New_Wrinkle%2C_Inc." title="United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc.">United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc.</a> (1952)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Loew's_Inc." title="United States v. Loew's Inc.">United States v. Loew's Inc.</a> (1962)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Wise" title="United States v. Wise">United States v. Wise</a> (1962)</li>

<li><a href="Silver_v._New_York_Stock_Exchange" title="Silver v. New York Stock Exchange">Silver v. New York Stock Exchange</a> (1963)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Singer_Mfg._Co." class="mw-redirect" title="United States v. Singer Mfg. Co.">United States v. Singer Mfg. Co.</a> (1963)</li>

<li><a href="Albrecht_v._Herald_Co." title="Albrecht v. Herald Co.">Albrecht v. Herald Co.</a> (1968)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Glaxo_Group_Ltd." title="United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.">United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.</a> (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Goldfarb_v._Virginia_State_Bar" title="Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar">Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar</a> (1975)</li>

<li><a href="Continental_Television%2C_Inc._v._GTE_Sylvania%2C_Inc." title="Continental Television, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.">Continental Television, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.</a> (1977)</li>

<li><a href="Illinois_Brick_Co._v._Illinois" title="Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois">Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois</a> (1977)</li>

<li><a href="Arizona_v._Maricopa_County_Medical_Society" title="Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society">Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Rice_v._Norman_Williams_Co." title="Rice v. Norman Williams Co.">Rice v. Norman Williams Co.</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Copperweld_Corp._v._Independence_Tube_Corp." title="Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.">Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.</a> (1984)</li>

<li><a href="Jefferson_Parish_Hospital_District_No._2_v._Hyde" title="Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde">Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde</a> (1984)</li>

<li><a href="NCAA_v._Board_of_Regents_of_the_University_of_Oklahoma" title="NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma">NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma</a> (1984)</li>

<li><a href="Matsushita_Electric_Industrial_Co._v._Zenith_Radio_Corp." title="Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.">Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.</a> (1986)</li>

<li><a href="State_Oil_Co._v._Khan" title="State Oil Co. v. Khan">State Oil Co. v. Khan</a> (1997)</li>

<li><a href="Texaco_Inc._v._Dagher" title="Texaco Inc. v. Dagher">Texaco Inc. v. Dagher</a> (2006)</li>

<li><a href="Bell_Atlantic_Corp._v._Twombly" title="Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly">Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly</a> (2007)</li>

<li><a href="Leegin_Creative_Leather_Products%2C_Inc._v._PSKS%2C_Inc." title="Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.">Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.</a> (2007)</li>

<li><a href="American_Needle%2C_Inc._v._National_Football_League" title="American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League">American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League</a> (2010)</li>

<li><a href="Ohio_v._American_Express_Co." title="Ohio v. American Express Co.">Ohio v. American Express Co.</a> (2018)</li>

<li><a href="National_Collegiate_Athletic_Association_v._Alston" title="National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston">National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston</a> (2021)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Sherman_Antitrust_Act" title="Sherman Antitrust Act">Sherman Antitrust Act</a> Section 2 case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States" title="Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States">Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States</a> (1911)</li>

<li><a href="Lorain_Journal_Co._v._United_States" title="Lorain Journal Co. v. United States">Lorain Journal Co. v. United States</a> (1951)</li>

<li><a href="Walker_Process_Equipment%2C_Inc._v._Food_Machinery_%26_Chemical_Corp." title="Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.">Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp.</a> (1965)</li>

<li><a href="Otter_Tail_Power_Co._v._United_States" title="Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States">Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States</a> (1973)</li>

<li><a href="Aspen_Skiing_Co._v._Aspen_Highlands_Skiing_Corp." title="Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.">Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.</a> (1985)</li>

<li><a href="Spectrum_Sports%2C_Inc._v._McQuillan" title="Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan">Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan</a> (1993)</li>

<li><a href="Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._Law_Offices_of_Curtis_V._Trinko%2C_LLP" title="Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP">Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP</a> (2004)</li>

<li><a href="Weyerhaeuser_Co._v._Ross-Simmons_Hardwood_Lumber_Co." title="Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co.">Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Co.</a> (2007)</li>

<li><a href="Pacific_Bell_Telephone_Co._v._linkLine_Communications%2C_Inc." title="Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.">Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. </a> (2009)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Other <a href="Sherman_Antitrust_Act" title="Sherman Antitrust Act">Sherman Antitrust Act</a> cases</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_v._E._C._Knight_Co." title="United States v. E. C. Knight Co.">United States v. E. C. Knight Co.</a> (1895)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Trans-Missouri_Freight_Association" title="United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association">United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association</a> (1897)</li>

<li><a href="Addyston_Pipe_%26_Steel_Co._v._United_States" title="Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States">Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States</a> (1899)</li>

<li><a href="Northern_Securities_Co._v._United_States" title="Northern Securities Co. v. United States">Northern Securities Co. v. United States</a> (1904)</li>

<li><a href="Swift_%26_Co._v._United_States" title="Swift & Co. v. United States">Swift & Co. v. United States</a> (1905)</li>

<li><a href="Loewe_v._Lawlor" title="Loewe v. Lawlor">Loewe v. Lawlor</a> (1908)</li>

<li><a href="Dr._Miles_Medical_Co._v._John_D._Park_%26_Sons_Co." title="Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.">Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co.</a> (1911)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Terminal_Railroad_Association" title="United States v. Terminal Railroad Association">United States v. Terminal Railroad Association</a> (1912)</li>

<li><a href="Chicago_Board_of_Trade_v._United_States" title="Chicago Board of Trade v. United States">Chicago Board of Trade v. United States</a> (1918)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Colgate_%26_Co." title="United States v. Colgate & Co.">United States v. Colgate & Co.</a> (1919)</li>

<li><a href="Federal_Baseball_Club_v._National_League" title="Federal Baseball Club v. National League">Federal Baseball Club v. National League</a> (1922)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._General_Electric_Co." title="United States v. General Electric Co.">United States v. General Electric Co.</a> (1926)</li>

<li><a href="Interstate_Circuit%2C_Inc._v._United_States" title="Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States">Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States</a> (1939)</li>

<li><a href="Ethyl_Gasoline_Corp._v._United_States" title="Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States">Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States</a> (1940)</li>

<li><a href="Fashion_Originators'_Guild_of_America_v._FTC" title="Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC">Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC</a> (1941)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Masonite_Corp." title="United States v. Masonite Corp.">United States v. Masonite Corp.</a> (1942)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Univis_Lens_Co." title="United States v. Univis Lens Co.">United States v. Univis Lens Co.</a> (1942)</li>

<li><a href="Parker_v._Brown" title="Parker v. Brown">Parker v. Brown</a> (1943)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._South-Eastern_Underwriters_Ass'n" title="United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n">United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n</a> (1944)</li>

<li><a href="Associated_Press_v._United_States" title="Associated Press v. United States">Associated Press v. United States</a> (1945)</li>

<li><a href="Hartford-Empire_Co._v._United_States" title="Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States">Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States</a> (1945)</li>

<li><a href="Bigelow_v._RKO_Radio_Pictures%2C_Inc." title="Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.">Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.</a> (1946)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Paramount_Pictures%2C_Inc." title="United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.">United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._United_States_Gypsum_Co." title="United States v. United States Gypsum Co.">United States v. United States Gypsum Co.</a> (1948–1950)</li>

<li><a href="Besser_Manufacturing_Co._v._United_States" title="Besser Manufacturing Co. v. United States">Besser Manufacturing Co. v. United States</a> (1951)</li>

<li><a href="Times-Picayune_Publishing_Co._v._United_States" title="Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States">Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States</a> (1953)</li>

<li><a href="Toolson_v._New_York_Yankees%2C_Inc." title="Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.">Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc.</a> (1953)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._International_Boxing_Club_of_New_York%2C_Inc." title="United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc.">United States v. International Boxing Club of New York, Inc.</a> (1955)</li>

<li><a href="Radovich_v._National_Football_League" title="Radovich v. National Football League">Radovich v. National Football League</a> (1957)</li>

<li><a href="Klor's%2C_Inc._v._Broadway-Hale_Stores%2C_Inc." title="Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.">Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.</a> (1959)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Parke%2C_Davis_%26_Co." title="United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.">United States v. Parke, Davis & Co.</a> (1960)</li>

<li><a href="Haywood_v._National_Basketball_Association" title="Haywood v. National Basketball Association">Haywood v. National Basketball Association</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Zenith_Radio_Corp._v._Hazeltine_Research%2C_Inc." title="Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.">Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Flood_v._Kuhn" title="Flood v. Kuhn">Flood v. Kuhn</a> (1972)</li>

<li><a href="Broadcast_Music%2C_Inc._v._CBS_Inc." title="Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS Inc.">Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS Inc.</a> (1979)</li>

<li><a href="California_Retail_Liquor_Dealers_Ass'n_v._Midcal_Aluminum%2C_Inc." title="California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.">California Retail Liquor Dealers Ass'n v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.</a> (1980)</li>

<li><a href="American_Society_of_Mechanical_Engineers%2C_Inc._v._Hydrolevel_Corp." title="American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.">American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inc. v. Hydrolevel Corp.</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Mitsubishi_Motors_Corp._v._Soler_Chrysler-Plymouth%2C_Inc." title="Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.">Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.</a> (1985)</li>

<li><a href="Eastman_Kodak_Co._v._Image_Technical_Services%2C_Inc." title="Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.">Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.</a> (1992)</li>

<li><a href="Hartford_Fire_Insurance_Co._v._California" title="Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California">Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California</a> (1993)</li>

<li><a href="Illinois_Tool_Works_Inc._v._Independent_Ink%2C_Inc." title="Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.">Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.</a> (2006)</li>

<li><a href="North_Carolina_State_Board_of_Dental_Examiners_v._FTC" title="North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC">North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC</a> (2015)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Interstate_Commerce_Act_of_1887" title="Interstate Commerce Act of 1887">Interstate Commerce Act</a> case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_v._Trans-Missouri_Freight_Association" title="United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association">United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association</a> (1897)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._ICC_(1970)" title="United States v. ICC (1970)">United States v. ICC</a> (1970)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Clayton_Antitrust_Act_of_1914" title="Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914">Clayton Antitrust Act</a> case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Duplex_Printing_Press_Co._v._Deering" title="Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering">Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering</a> (1921)</li>

<li><a href="Fashion_Originators'_Guild_of_America_v._FTC" title="Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC">Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC</a> (1941)</li>

<li><a href="Mercoid_cases" title="Mercoid cases">Mercoid cases</a> (1944)</li>

<li><a href="Hartford-Empire_Co._v._United_States" title="Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States">Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States</a> (1945)</li>

<li><a href="Bigelow_v._RKO_Radio_Pictures%2C_Inc." title="Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.">Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.</a> (1946)</li>

<li><a href="General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy" title="General Motors streetcar conspiracy">United States v. National City Lines Inc.</a> (1948)</li>

<li><a href="Standard_Oil_Co._v._United_States_(Standard_Stations)" title="Standard Oil Co. v. United States (Standard Stations)">Standard Oil Co. v. United States</a> (1949)</li>

<li><a href="Tampa_Electric_Co._v._Nashville_Coal_Co." title="Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.">Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co. </a> (1961)</li>

<li><a href="Silver_v._New_York_Stock_Exchange" title="Silver v. New York Stock Exchange">Silver v. New York Stock Exchange</a> (1963)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Philadelphia_National_Bank" title="United States v. Philadelphia National Bank">United States v. Philadelphia National Bank</a> (1963)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co." title="United States v. Continental Can Co.">United States v. Continental Can Co.</a> (1964)</li>

<li><a href="FTC_v._Consolidated_Foods_Corp." title="FTC v. Consolidated Foods Corp.">FTC v. Consolidated Foods Corp.</a> (1965)</li>

<li><a href="FTC_v._Dean_Foods_Co." title="FTC v. Dean Foods Co.">FTC v. Dean Foods Co.</a> (1966)</li>

<li><a href="Zenith_Radio_Corp._v._Hazeltine_Research%2C_Inc." title="Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.">Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.</a> (1971)</li>

<li><a href="Hawaii_v._Standard_Oil_Co._of_California" title="Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California">Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California</a> (1972)</li>

<li><a href="Illinois_Brick_Co._v._Illinois" title="Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois">Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois</a> (1977)</li>

<li><a href="Pfizer_Inc._v._Government_of_India" title="Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India">Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India</a> (1978)</li>

<li><a href="Brooke_Group_Ltd._v._Brown_%26_Williamson_Tobacco_Corp." title="Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.">Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.</a> (1993)</li>

<li><a href="Apple_Inc._v._Pepper" title="Apple Inc. v. Pepper">Apple Inc. v. Pepper</a> (2019)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Federal_Trade_Commission_Act_of_1914" title="Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914">FTC Act</a> case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Fashion_Originators'_Guild_of_America_v._FTC" title="Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC">Fashion Originators' Guild of America v. FTC</a> (1941)</li>

<li><a href="FTC_v._Motion_Picture_Advertising_Service_Co." title="FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co.">FTC v. Motion Picture Advertising Service Co.</a> (1953)</li>

<li><a href="FTC_v._Sperry_%26_Hutchinson_Trading_Stamp_Co." title="FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co.">FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Trading Stamp Co.</a> (1972)</li>

<li><a href="FTC_v._Actavis%2C_Inc." title="FTC v. Actavis, Inc.">FTC v. Actavis, Inc.</a> (2013)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%"><a href="Robinson%E2%80%93Patman_Act" title="Robinson–Patman Act">Robinson–Patman Act</a> case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Matsushita_Electric_Industrial_Co._v._Zenith_Radio_Corp." title="Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.">Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.</a> (1986)</li>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Other cases</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Continental_Paper_Bag_Co._v._Eastern_Paper_Bag_Co." title="Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.">Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.</a> (1908)</li>

<li><a href="Black_%26_White_Taxicab_%26_Transfer_Co._v._Brown_%26_Yellow_Taxicab_%26_Transfer_Co." title="Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.">Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co.</a> (1928)</li>

<li><a href="Watson_v._Buck" title="Watson v. Buck">Watson v. Buck</a> (1941)</li>

<li><a href="National_Broadcasting_Co._v._United_States" title="National Broadcasting Co. v. United States">National Broadcasting Co. v. United States</a> (1943)</li>

<li><a href="Dawson_Chemical_Co._v._Rohm_%26_Haas_Co." title="Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.">Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.</a> (1980)</li>

<li><a href="District_of_Columbia_Court_of_Appeals_v._Feldman" title="District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman">District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman</a> (1983)</li>

<li><a href="Credit_Suisse_Securities_(USA)_LLC_v._Billing" title="Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing">Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing</a> (2007)</li>

<li><a href="Comcast_Corp._v._Behrend" title="Comcast Corp. v. Behrend">Comcast Corp. v. Behrend</a> (2013)</li>

<li><a href="Animal_Science_Products_v._Hebei_Welcome_Pharmaceuticals" title="Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals">Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals</a> (2018)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr></tbody></table><div></div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Other federal case law</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="United_States_v._Motion_Picture_Patents_Co." title="United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co.">United States v. Motion Picture Patents Co.</a> (1915)</li>

<li><a href="Consolidated_Music_Corporation" title="Consolidated Music Corporation">United States v. Consolidated Music Corporation</a> (1922)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Vehicular_Parking_Ltd." title="United States v. Vehicular Parking Ltd.">United States v. Vehicular Parking Ltd.</a> (1944)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Alcoa" title="United States v. Alcoa">United States v. Alcoa</a> (1945)</li>

<li><a href="Gamco%2C_Inc._v._Providence_Fruit_%26_Produce_Building%2C_Inc." title="Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc.">Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Building, Inc.</a> (1952)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Morgan_(1953)" title="United States v. Morgan (1953)">United States v. Morgan</a> (1953)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Krasnov" title="United States v. Krasnov">United States v. Krasnov</a> (1956)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Huck_Mfg._Co." class="mw-redirect" title="United States v. Huck Mfg. Co.">United States v. Huck Mfg. Co.</a> (1965)</li>

<li><a href="Robertson_v._National_Basketball_Ass'n" title="Robertson v. National Basketball Ass'n">Robertson v. National Basketball Ass'n</a> (1977)</li>

<li><a href="SmithKline_Corp._v._Eli_Lilly_%26_Co." title="SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co.">SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co.</a> (1978)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Westinghouse_Electric_Co." title="United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co.">United States v. Westinghouse Electric Co.</a> (1981)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._AT%26T_(1982)" title="United States v. AT&T (1982)">United States v. AT&T</a> (1982)</li>

<li><a href="Mid-South_Grizzlies_v._National_Football_League" title="Mid-South Grizzlies v. National Football League">Mid-South Grizzlies v. National Football League</a> (1983)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Syufy_Enterprises" title="United States v. Syufy Enterprises">United States v. Syufy Enterprises</a> (1990)</li>

<li><a href="Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association" title="Wilk v. American Medical Association">Wilk v. American Medical Association</a> (1990)</li>

<li><a href="A.D._Bedell_Wholesale_Co.%2C_Inc._v._Philip_Morris_Inc." title="A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.">A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc.</a> (2001)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp." title="United States v. Microsoft Corp.">United States v. Microsoft Corp.</a> (2001)</li>

<li><a href="Fraser_v._Major_League_Soccer" title="Fraser v. Major League Soccer">Fraser v. Major League Soccer</a> (2002)</li>

<li><a href="LePage's%2C_Inc._v._3M" title="LePage's, Inc. v. 3M">LePage's, Inc. v. 3M</a> (2003)</li>

<li><a href="Advanced_Micro_Devices%2C_Inc._v._Intel_Corp." title="Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.">Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. Intel Corp.</a> (2005)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Dentsply_Int'l%2C_Inc." title="United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc.">United States v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc.</a> (2005)</li>

<li><a href="Tritent_International_Corp._v._Kentucky" title="Tritent International Corp. v. Kentucky">Tritent International Corp. v. Kentucky</a> (2006)</li>

<li><a href="Wallace_v._International_Business_Machines_Corp." title="Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp.">Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp.</a> (2006)</li>

<li><a href="De_Beers_antitrust_litigation" title="De Beers antitrust litigation">De Beers antitrust litigation</a> (2008)</li>

<li><a href="Redbox_Automated_Retail_LLC_v._Universal_City_Studios_LLLP" title="Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP">Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Universal City Studios LLLP</a> (2009)</li>

<li><a href="Princo_Corp._v._ITC" title="Princo Corp. v. ITC">Princo Corp. v. ITC</a> (2010)</li>

<li><a href="High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation" title="High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation">United States v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al.</a> (2011)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Apple_(2012)" title="United States v. Apple (2012)">United States v. Apple Inc.</a> (2013)</li>

<li><a href="O'Bannon_v._NCAA" title="O'Bannon v. NCAA">O'Bannon v. NCAA</a> (2015)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._AT%26T_(2019)" title="United States v. AT&T (2019)">United States v. AT&T</a> (2015)</li>

<li><a href="FTC_v._Qualcomm" title="FTC v. Qualcomm">FTC v. Qualcomm</a> (2020)</li>

<li><a href="New_York_v._Deutsche_Telekom" title="New York v. Deutsche Telekom">New York v. Deutsche Telekom</a> (2020)</li>

<li><a href="Epic_Games_v._Apple" title="Epic Games v. Apple">Epic Games v. Apple</a> (2021)</li>

<li><a href="Burnett_v._National_Association_of_Realtors" title="Burnett v. National Association of Realtors">Burnett v. National Association of Realtors</a> (2023)</li>

<li><a href="Epic_Games_v._Google" title="Epic Games v. Google">Epic Games v. Google</a> (2023)</li>

<li><a href="FTC_v._Microsoft" title="FTC v. Microsoft">FTC v. Microsoft</a> (2023)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2020)" title="United States v. Google LLC (2020)">United States v. Google LLC</a> (2024)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Google_LLC_(2023)" title="United States v. Google LLC (2023)">United States v. Google LLC</a> (2025)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Ongoing litigation ‡</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-odd" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<li><a href="FTC_v._Amazon" title="FTC v. Amazon">FTC v. Amazon</a> (2023)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Apple_(2024)" title="United States v. Apple (2024)">United States v. Apple Inc.</a> (2024)</li>

<li><a href="United_States_v._Live_Nation_Entertainment" title="United States v. Live Nation Entertainment">United States v. Live Nation Entertainment</a> (2024)</li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><th scope="row" class="navbox-group" style="width:1%">Related topics</th><td class="navbox-list-with-group navbox-list navbox-even" style="width:100%;padding:0"><div style="padding:0 0.25em">

<ul><li><a href="Block_booking" title="Block booking">Block booking</a></li>

<li><a href="Breakup_of_the_Bell_System" title="Breakup of the Bell System">Breakup of the Bell System</a></li>

<li><a href="Bulk-sale_restriction" title="Bulk-sale restriction">Bulk-sale restriction</a></li>

<li><a href="Bundling_(antitrust_law)" title="Bundling (antitrust law)">Bundling</a></li>

<li><a href="Civil_investigative_demand" title="Civil investigative demand">Civil investigative demand</a></li>

<li><a href="Consent_decree" title="Consent decree">Consent decree</a></li>

<li><a href="Consumer_welfare_standard" title="Consumer welfare standard">Consumer welfare standard</a></li>

<li><a href="Dividing_territories" title="Dividing territories">Dividing territories</a></li>

<li><a href="Essential_facilities_doctrine" title="Essential facilities doctrine">Essential facilities doctrine</a></li>

<li><a href="Exclusive_dealing" title="Exclusive dealing">Exclusive dealing</a></li>

<li><a href="Hub-and-spoke_conspiracy" title="Hub-and-spoke conspiracy">Hub-and-spoke conspiracy</a></li>

<li><a href="Kingsbury_Commitment" title="Kingsbury Commitment">Kingsbury Commitment</a></li>

<li><a href="Merger_guidelines" title="Merger guidelines">Merger guidelines</a></li>

<li><a href="Modification_of_Final_Judgment" title="Modification of Final Judgment">Modification of Final Judgment</a></li>

<li><a href="New_Brandeis_movement" title="New Brandeis movement">New Brandeis movement</a></li>

<li><a href="Noerr%E2%80%93Pennington_doctrine" title="Noerr–Pennington doctrine">Noerr–Pennington doctrine</a></li>

<li><a href="Osteopathic_Physicians_%26_Surgeons_v._California_Medical_Ass'n" title="Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. California Medical Ass'n">Osteopathic Physicians & Surgeons v. California Medical Ass'n</a> (1964)</li>

<li><a href="Parker_immunity_doctrine" title="Parker immunity doctrine">Parker immunity doctrine</a></li>

<li><a href="Post-sale_restraint" title="Post-sale restraint">Post-sale restraint</a></li>

<li><a href="Raising_rivals'_costs" title="Raising rivals' costs">Raising rivals' costs</a></li>

<li><a href="Relevant_market" title="Relevant market">Relevant market</a></li>

<li><a href="Report_on_Chain_Broadcasting" title="Report on Chain Broadcasting">Report on Chain Broadcasting</a></li>

<li><a href="Reverse_payment_patent_settlement" title="Reverse payment patent settlement">Reverse payment patent settlement</a></li>

<li><a href="Rule_of_reason" title="Rule of reason">Rule of reason</a></li>

<li><a href="Second_request" title="Second request">Second request</a></li>

<li><a href="Successors_of_Standard_Oil" class="mw-redirect" title="Successors of Standard Oil">Successors of Standard Oil</a></li>

<li><a href="Unfairness_doctrine" title="Unfairness doctrine">Unfairness doctrine</a></li>

<li><a href="Unilateral_policy" title="Unilateral policy">Unilateral policy</a></li></ul>

</div></td></tr><tr><td class="navbox-abovebelow" colspan="2"><div>‡ date of filing</div></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div><div><div class="zim-footer">

This article is issued from <a class="external text" title="Last edited on 2025-05-25" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?title=Patent_misuse&oldid=1292116871">Wikipedia</a>. The text is available under <a class="external text" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en">Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0</a> unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

</div>

</div></div>

</div>

</main>

</div>

</body></html>