If your company has been sued for patent infringement, it might avoid any liability if it can prove that it has been harmed because the patent holder (called the “patentee”) has misused its patent in a manner that has caused quantifiable harm to your company. This affirmative defense is called “patent misuse.” If successful, it can serve as a complete defense to a claim of patent infringement.
Many patented products are necessary inputs that lack reasonable substitutes. The purchasers of these products require them in order to make their own products or operate their own businesses, and they must therefore purchase these products. They have no other choice. This is particularly true where the patent in question covers a technology that has become an “essential standard” that has been adopted by a private standards-setting agency.
The patentees of these products, mindful of their value, sometimes overreach by making their products available only under licenses whose duration exceeds the remaining term of the patent. The customer must therefore pay for a license to use the patentee’s product for a longer time than it would otherwise be required to purchase the patented product only from the patentee. The patent would expire at a date certain, after which the customer could purchase the product from the patentee or any other company that decided to make the same product, whose manufacture by competitors would no longer be forbidden by the expired patent. But if the patentee forces the customer to accept a license to use the patented product, and if the duration of the license exceeds the remaining term of the patent, then the patentee has extended its exclusive right to sell the product in question for a longer period than the patent laws allow. Where this occurs, the patentee is said to misuse its patent in order to oblige its customer to accept a licensing agreement that has the effect of unlawfully prolonging the patentee’s exclusive right to make its patented product available to the customer. This practice constitutes patent misuse.
Another kind of patent misuse arises when the patentee sells its patented product only on condition that the purchaser also buy other, non-patented products. Since the purchasers typically require the patented product, they have no choice but also to purchase the other, non-patented products from the patentee. Once again the patentee has misused its patent in order to become the compulsory seller not only of the patented product, but also of other, non-patented ones. This practice likewise constitutes patent misuse, and it can also give rise to an antitrust claim called an unlawful tie-in agreement, which can sometimes constitute an unlawful restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act at Sections 16720 and 16726 of the California Business & Professions Code.
If your company has been sued for patent infringement, it may establish a complete affirmative defense that absolves it of liability by prevailing on the ground of patent misuse. If you wish to confer with us about this matter, contact us in complete confidence to do so.
Our Ability to Accept Large Cases
Several times we have been opposed by teams of highly capable attorneys fielded by leading global law firms. In any such matter, or whenever the need arises, we can quickly assemble our own team of first-rate professionals who have worked with us successfully on prior occasion, and we can also procure essential litigation services from reliable outside service-providers, so that we are never outmatched or overwhelmed even by the largest or most pro-active global firm. We think that our work in these matters has reflected favorably on us, and we have obtained successful results for our clients in exceedingly difficult, sprawling, and complex antitrust controversies. All the while, we are able to maintain our reasonable billing arrangements because of the manner in which our practice is structured and our lean fixed costs.
Our Articles on Antitrust Law
Mr. Markham and Mr. Bona have given lectures on antitrust law for other attorneys (MCLE classes) and written extensively about antitrust law. Mr. Markham provides occasional commentary in his blog about antitrust issues that make the news, and Mr. Bona does this same in his own blog. Below you will find links to three articles on antitrust law written by Mr. Markham that have become reference sources for other attorneys and the general public:
The Qualcomm Case Isn’t Even a Close Call: Qualcomm Blatantly Misused Its Standard-Essential Patents to Restrain Trade and Monopolize Markets. By William Markham
The Extraordinary Qualcomm Case. The defining antitrust issues of our time are at stake in the landmark case of Fed Trade Comm'n v. Qualcomm Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2017, Case No. 17-CV-00220-LH) ("Qualcomm"). Qualcomm specifically concerns standard-essential patents and...
The DOJ’s Investigation of the Auto Producers’ Draft Agreement with California: It Is Misguided and Likely an Abuse of Power. By William Markham
The United States Department of Justice has reportedly begun an antitrust investigation of four major automakers for possible unlawful collusion in violation of United States antitrust law. The cause of this investigation? The automakers tentatively agreed with the...
I respectfully and strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Amex case, in which the Supreme Court ruled, by a narrow 5-4 majority, that the government plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case against American Express Company...
The Law Offices of William Markham, P.C.
- 402 West Broadway, Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92101.
Tell Us About Your Case
Call 619.221.4400 now or fill out the form below to receive a free and confidential initial consultation.