Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Organisational structure and leadership style
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Organisational structure and leadership style
Purpose
Based on the guidance from the previous management meeting, this group asked our management team to prepare and present this briefing. In the development, we have a identified with a two folded purpose: to present an overview of the Quanta v LG Electronics case and present recent industry findings that relate to how our organization deals with similar issues pertinent to Quanta v LG Electronics.
To accomplish this our management team reviewed the specifics of the Quanta v LG Electronics case. We also reviewed the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C) Article 2 – Sales (2002) to define characteristics on what constitutes an acceptance for an agreement. Discussion on why we focused on the acceptance to an agreement is later in the briefing; however, this appears as a contentious crux to LGE’s issues on the case and patent exhaustion.
Finally, to finalize our briefing today, we will identify four with four DoD Cooperative R&D Agreements (CRADAs) cases that reflect patent court issues in evaluate how we can avoid similar issues to the Quanta v LG Electronics case. The area we will experience similar concerns with patent exhaustion and sharing of DoD technology development concerns CRADAs, licenses, and shared responsibilities with other agencies or independent companies who we share R&D interests and advancements.
Quanta v LG Electronics Overview
Basic Issue - patent exhaustion after establishing a license agreement with Intel
LGE created two license agreements with Intel. The first authorized Intel to “make, use, sell (directly or indirectly), offer to sell, import or otherwise dispose of” the LGEs patents. In a separate agreement, the LGE explicitly required Intel to notify their customers of not have a license to c...
... middle of paper ...
...icensing. Research
Technology Management, 54(5), 47-53. doi:10.5437/08956308X5405004
Nguyen, T. (2009). Patent holders' contractual restrictions on downstream purchasers in the
United States and European Union through Quanta Prism. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12(2), 89-121. doi:10.1111/j.1747-1796.2009.00358.x
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109, 553 U.S. 617, 170 L. Ed. 2d 996
(2008).
Rinehart, A. (2010). Contracting patents: a modern patent exhaustion doctrine. Harvard Journal
Of Law & Technology, 23(2), 483-535. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com
Swearingen, W. (2009). Tech link. Economic Development Journal, 8(4), 5-11. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com U.C.C. § 2-101 et seq. (2002).
Waterfront Technologies Inc. v. InScope International, Inc. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83788.
Retrieved from www.lexisnexis.com
EEOC v. Consolidated Service System, 989 F.2d 233 (Cir. 1993), as cited by Bennett-Alexander, D.D. and Hartman, L. P. (2014) at 195.
* Gordon v. New York Stock Exchange, inc., 422 U.S. 659 (1975). Read from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/422/659
Moore, James F., "U.S. v. Microsoft: The Bigger Question," New York Times, January 25, 1998, p. 12-BU.
Lehman, Bruce. 2003. “The Pharmaceutical Industry and the Patent System”. International Intellectual Property Institute. Pages 1-14.
The United States Patent Office (“USPTO”) faces criticism from its users and legislators that the timeliness of the patent process and ultimate quality of issued patents are inadequate. In order to address this criticism Congress made several changes to the authorities of the USPTO in the last decade and considered more changes in 2009. Nevertheless, problems persist and some stakeholders argue that reorganizing the USPTO as a government corporation would best alleviate these problems by broadening its authorities even further and releasing it from external constraints.
Barnes, D. W. (2011). Congestible intellectual property and impure public goods. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 9(8), 533. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=njtip
In conclusion, with Cisco and Qualcomm joining on a project it will show other companies that they are going to come out with something better than anyone else does. Something that has not been created before, something unique with the two minds of American companies, they will come out with something that is great.
As these diver¬gences in court / IP author¬i¬ties’ prac¬tices may lead to dif¬fer¬ent scopes of pro¬tec¬tion in dif¬fer¬ent mem¬ber states, a clar¬i¬fy¬ing deci¬sion of the CJEU is desirable.
Patents have always represented a mutually beneficial a relationship between inventor and public. The inventor gets 17 years of basic monopoly on his invention so that he ...
Intellectual property protection has become increasingly popular in the last century. Many factors have probed interest in this area of the law. A few of those factors include musicians seeking protection of their musical talents through use of copyrights, companies seek to protect inventions of advanced production capabilities, companies create trademarks that differentiate their unique goods from competitors, and companies like Coca-Cola protect their undisclosed ingredients for their products through use of trade secrets. These examples are to gain an understanding of how and why intellectual property rights help companies seek advantages in the marketplace. Furthermore, as the world shrinks because of advancements in transportation and computer technology, intellectual property rights become a large part of entrepreneurship and product development. This paper will discuss the interesting and challenging topic of intellectual property protection. The four basic types of intellectual property include copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets; we will discuss the intellectual properties in the order in which they are listed.
...pple Inc. While this amount awarded to Apple Inc. was much less than they were going for it was also significantly lower than what Judge Koh vacated after the previous trial; that number being 400 million. This case was a very large win for Apple Inc. and their power in the electronics industry. This ruling was also a huge statement made in terms of patent infringement. As Colleen Allen said in an interview, “If we didn't award Apple much, we're saying it's OK to infringe patents”
Cisco's suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that Huawei unlawfully copied and misappropriated Cisco's IOS. software, including source code, copied Cisco documentation and other copyrighted materials, and infringed numerous Cisco patents. Cisco seeks remedies to prohibit the continued misappropriation of its intellectual property by Huawei and recover damages resulting from Huawei's illegal actions.1
As a company that owns majority of the computer-chip market, Intel is a “monopoly”. According to the textbook Business Ethics: Concept and Cases (Velaquez, 2014) Intel owned 90 percent of the market when they started their power trip. Furthermore, the company has managed to control 71% of the x86 technology market, as of 2011. To further support this claim,
...market share, Intel progressively reduced licensee and developed process and manufacturing infrastructure to manufacture chips by itself. Thus, it contained the “profit pool” in its value chain. Thereafter, successful tie-ups with ‘horizontal’ complementors like Compaq 7 Microsoft led to wrecking of IBM’s hegemony. With established leadership in microprocessor industry, Intel strategically started ‘Intel Inside’ and ‘Runs better on Pentium processor’ programs to improve brand recognition. As more and more end-customers identified Intel and microprocessor as the most important component in a PC, Intel could now command higher power and bargaining position with OEM and software manufacturers. This ensures demand-side control.
Archibugi, Daniele, and Andrea Filippetti. "The Globalisation of Intellectual Property Rights: Four Learned Lessons and Four Theses." Web.