Princo Corp. v. International Trade Com'n
| Decision Date | 13 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-1386.,2007-1386. |
| Citation | 583 F.3d 1380 |
| Parties | PRINCO CORPORATION and Princo America Corporation, Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee, and U.S. Philips Corporation, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-474.
Clara Kuehn, Wayne W. Herrington, James M. Lyons, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, for Appellee.
Eric L. Wesenberg, Robert E. Freitas, Cynthia A. Wickstrom Zuniga, Kenneth J. Halpern, Michael C. Ting, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Appellants.
A. Douglas Melamed, Jonathan G. Cedarbaum, Edward C. Dumont, Perry A. Lange, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale, Washington, DC, for Intervenor.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, MAYER, LOURIE, RADER, BRYSON, GAJARSA, LINN, DYK, PROST, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Prior report: 563 F.3d 1301
Intervenor U.S. Philips Corporation filed a petition for rehearing en banc, Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation filed a petition for rehearing en banc, and Appellee International Trade Commission filed a petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Each petition for rehearing en banc was presumed to request relief that can be granted by the panel that heard the appeal, and action on the petitions for rehearing en banc was deferred until the panel had an opportunity to grant the relief requested. The panel requested responses to U.S. Philips's petition from Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation, to Princo's petition from Appellee International Trade Commission and from Intervenor U.S. Philips Corporation, and to the International Trade Commission's petition from Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation; each of the requested responses was filed. The court granted the New York Intellectual Property Law Association's motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae supporting U.S. Philips's petition and opposing Princo's petition, and Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation filed a response to the amicus curiae brief.
The petitions for rehearing were considered by the panel that heard the appeal. Thereafter, the petitions for rehearing en banc, the responses, the amicus curiae brief, and the response to the amicus curiae brief were referred to the circuit judges authorized to request a poll on whether to rehear the appeal en banc. A poll was requested and taken, and the court has decided that the appeal warrants en banc consideration.
(1) The petition of Intervenor U.S. Philips Corporation for rehearing en banc is granted.
(2) The petition of Appellee International Trade Commission for rehearing en banc is granted.
(3) The petition of Appellants Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation for rehearing en banc is denied.
(4) The court's April 20, 2009, opinion is vacated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nero Ag v. Mpeg La
...products to believe that itsPage 7 product infringed any of the claims in the patent), vacated on other grounds by Princo v. ITC, 583 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Nero is not entitled to a patent pool customized by MPEG LA to Nero's precise needs; direct licensing can accomplish that aim. 3.......
-
The Treatment of Specific Licensing Issues
...subsequently obtained patent or licensable know-how to the project.”). 211. 563 F.3d 1301, 1313 (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2009), vacated by 583 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc). 212. Princo, 563 F.3d at 1313. 213. Id. 214. Id. at 1315. The court remanded for the FTC to consider the misuse th......
-
Specific Practices That Have Been Challenged as Misuse
...57. Princo Corp. v. ITC, 616 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). 58. Princo Corp. v. ITC, 563 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) vacated 583 F.3d 1380, 616 F.3d 1318, 1326 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (reinstating the panel’s opinion on tying). 59. Princo , 563 F.3d at at 1312. 60. Howeve......
-
Overview of Antitrust and Misuse Law in the Patent Context
...directed verdict dismissing an antitrust claim and remanding for rule of reason analysis). 275. 563 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) . 276. 583 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Overview of Antitrust and Misuse Law in the Patent Context 137 negotiate” with the patent holder for licenses is illegal. 277......
-
DISAPPROVAL OF QUICK-LOOK APPROVAL: ANTITRUST AFTER NCAA v. ALSTON.
...limits."). (263.) See. e.g., Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 563 F.3d 1301, 1311 (Fed. Cir.). reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated. 583 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009), and on reh'g en banc, 616 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("Our understanding of the likely procompetitive benefits of package......