On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 22:49:48 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Why Patentees Conveying Covenants Not to Sue Should Take Another Look at the
> Fine Print
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| Patentees concerned with downstream use may want to take a closer look at the
>| terms on which they license and covenant not to sue. Very recently, on April
>| 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in TransCore, Inc.
>| v. ETC Corp. that an unconditional covenant not to sue authorizes the sale of
>| a patented article, thereby exhausting patent rights in the article.[FOOTNOTE
>| 1] Although the TransCore ruling represents a logical extension of existing
>| patent exhaustion jurisprudence, it should be carefully considered when
>| drafting patent licenses and covenants not to sue.
> `----
>
> http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1202432431633
You really should actually read what you write. This is actually saying
that a covenant not to sue was upheld by the court, and that it made it
impossible for the patentee to sue downstream works.
In other words, it's saying that courts find them legally binding, and that
a covenant not to sue would protect downstream works from suit..
|
|
