International Salt Co. v. U.S.

6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Patent Licensing in the Cloud: Antitrust Issues

    Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLPOctober 5, 2012

    Courts have found such licenses to constitute antitrust violations or patent misuse, and companies should be wary of any such conditions in patent licenses. See, e.g., United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 400 (1948); Int’l Salt v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 395 (1947); Virginia Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860, 868-69 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

  2. Supreme Court Rejects Presumption Of Market Power In Patent Tying Cases

    Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLPJason HicksApril 30, 2006

    On March 1, 2006, the Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. The Court reversed several vintage Supreme Court cases, United States v. Loew's, Inc., 371 U.S. 38 (1962) and International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947), which established a presumption of market power in tying cases from the mere ownership of patent or copyright. In abrogating this market power presumption, the Supreme Court noted: "Because a patent does not necessarily confer market power upon the patentee, in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product."

  3. Supreme Court Eliminates “Patent Equals Market Power”

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPMarch 21, 2006

    In an opinion that almost seemed to invite certorari, it held the Supreme Court authority was controlling despite contrary decisions in the lower courts and withering criticism from many commentators.Justice Stevens, writing for a unanimous court, stated that the market power presumption had its basis in the patent misuse doctrine and migrated to antitrust due to the Court’s “strong disapproval” of tying arrangements as evidenced by such decisions as Loew’s and International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947). He then stated, however, that this disapproval had “substantially diminished” citing the Court’s more recent decisions in United States Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, 429 U.S. 610 (1977) and Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (1984).

  4. Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink (Supreme Court Opinion)

    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPEdward J. NaidichMarch 1, 2006

    As the Court explained, the presumption that a patent confers market power arose outside the antitrust context as part of the patent misuse doctrine, which provides a defense to patent infringement when a patentee ties the purchase of unpatented goods to the sale of a patented good. The presumption that a patent confers market power then migrated from patent law to antitrust law in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392 (1947). In 1988, Congress amended the Patent Code to eliminate the patent-equals-market-power presumption in the patent misuse context.

  5. Patent Misuse And Antitrust Tying Analysis – Close But Imperfect Substitutes

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPOctober 7, 2005

    Again, the ITC had failed to credit the procompetitive efficiencies in Broadcast Music.6The panel acknowledged the grant of certiorari in Independent Ink., but reasoned that it should go ahead and decide the case rather than waiting for the Supreme Court to determine whether or not Paramount and Loew’s were venerable, vestigial, void, or voidable.See, United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 45 (1962); United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948).396 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, No. 04-1329 (United States Supreme Court, 2005).332 U.S. 392, 395 (1947).333 U.S. 364 400 (1948).See, e.g., Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Res., Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 135-36 (1969) (“key inquiry is whether by imposing conditions that derive their force from the patent, the patentee has impermissibly broadened the scope of the patent grant with anticompetitive effects.”) C.R. Bard, Inc. v. The M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Windsurfing Int’l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995 (1001) (Fed. Cir. 1986).

  6. Of Bats And Sunshine: Presumption Of Market Power In Patent Tying Case Alive But Rebuttable

    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLPMarch 8, 2005

    210 F. Supp. 2d at 1166. The district court noted that the Ninth Circuit decision of Digidyne Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 734 (9th Cir. 1984) holds that a copyright creates only a rebuttable presumption of economic power.332 U.S. 392 (1947).371 U.S. 38 (1962). The court stated “the Loew’s court also stated that it needed not inquire into whether the distributors had market power.