Quanta vs LG Electronics Case

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