Transcore v. Electronic Transaction Consultants
Decision Date | 08 April 2009 |
Docket Number | No. 2008-1430.,2008-1430. |
Citation | 563 F.3d 1271 |
Parties | TRANSCORE, LP and TC License, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION CONSULTANTS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
William J. Robinson, Foley & Lardner LLP, of Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief was Grant E. Kinsel.
John R. Emerson, Haynes and Boone, LLP, of Dallas, TX, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Phillip B. Philbin, Jacob G. Hodges, and William D. White.
Before GAJARSA, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
TransCore, LP and TC License, Ltd. (collectively "TransCore") appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that was entered upon the district court's grant of summary judgment. See Transcore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., No. 3:05-CV-2316-K, 2008 WL 2152027 . Specifically, the District Court found that TransCore's patent infringement claims against Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp. ("ETC") were barred by patent exhaustion, implied license and legal estoppel, in view of a settlement agreement between TransCore and the supplier of the products ETC installed, Mark IV. Because we agree with the district court and find that Mark IV's sales were authorized and exhausted TransCore's patent rights, thus barring TransCore's claims against ETC, we affirm.
TransCore is engaged in the manufacture, sale and installation of automated toll collection systems—the tags and readers that communicate as a vehicle passes through an automated toll plaza (e.g., E-ZPass). TransCore is the assignee of several patents to related technologies.
In 2000, TransCore sued a competitor, Mark IV Industries, for infringement of several TransCore patents. That action was resolved by a settlement agreement, in which Mark IV agreed to pay $4.5M in exchange for an unconditional covenant not to sue and a release of all existing claims. The covenant and release, which are central to the dispute here, read:
3. In exchange for the payment set forth in paragraph 1, TCI hereby agrees and covenants not to bring any demand, claim, lawsuit, or action against Mark IV for future infringement of any of United States Patent Nos. 5,805,082; 5,289,183; 5,406,275; 5,144,553; 5,086,389; 5,751,973; 5,347,274; 5,351,187; 5,253,162; and 4,303,904, or any foreign counterparts of the aforesaid United States Patents, for the entire remainder of the terms of the respective United States Patents and their foreign counterparts. This Covenant Not To Sue shall not apply to any other patents issued as of the effective date of this Agreement or to be issued in the future.
* * *
8. TCI, TII and GRAVELLE, for themselves and their respective predecessors, successors, heirs and assigns, fully and forever release, discharge and dismiss all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, liens and rights, in law or in equity (known, unknown, contingent, accrued, inchoate or otherwise), existing as of June 26, 2001, that they have against MARK IV, and its officers, directors, employees, representatives and attorneys of MARK IV, but excluding any claims for breach of this Agreement. No express or implied license or future release whatsoever is granted to MARK IV or to any third party by this Release.
Several years later, ETC, a firm engaged in consulting and systems integration related to toll-collection systems, won a bid with the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (ISTHA) to install and test a new open-road tolling system. As part of the contract, ETC agreed to set up and test toll-collection systems purchased by the ISTHA from Mark IV.
TransCore sued ETC for infringement of three patents that had previously been in suit against Mark IV (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,082; 5,289,183; and 5,406,275 (the '082, '183, and '275 patents)) as well as U.S. Patent No. 6,653,946 (the '946 patent), a related patent that was pending before the Patent and Trademark Office but had not yet issued at the time of the TransCore—Mark IV settlement. During a hearing, the district court questioned the legal impact of the TransCore—Mark IV settlement agreement on the TransCore— ETC lawsuit and ordered the parties to brief the issue. ETC responded by filing a motion for summary judgment with the district court, asserting that its activities were permitted by the TransCore—Mark IV settlement agreement under the related doctrines of patent exhaustion, implied license and legal estoppel.
On May 22, 2008, the district court granted ETC's motion, dismissed TransCore's claims with prejudice and directed the entry of final judgment. TransCore timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). We review a district court's grant of summary judgment without deference, reapplying the same standard as the district court. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119, 1121 (Fed.Cir.2003). "In deciding whether summary judgment was appropriate, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion with doubts resolved in favor of the opponent...." Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed.Cir.1998).
The district court found that Mark IV's sales of the toll collection systems installed by ETC were authorized by the TransCore—Mark IV settlement agreement, such that TransCore's patent rights were exhausted as to those systems. We agree.1
Recently, in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 170 L.Ed.2d 996 (2008), the Supreme Court reiterated unequivocally that "[t]he longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item," id. at 2115, and that "[e]xhaustion is triggered only by a sale authorized by the patent holder," id. at 2121. The question for this court is whether an unconditional covenant not to sue authorizes sales by the covenantee for purposes of patent exhaustion. We hold that it does.
TransCore asserts that sales under a covenant not to sue are not "authorized," relying heavily on Jacobs v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 370 F.3d 1097 (Fed.Cir. 2004). In Jacobs, a panel of this court addressed the respective roles of a license term and a covenant not to sue in a settlement agreement. Explicitly considering downstream customer liability, the panel explained:
If all that [the patent holder] intended to do through the settlement agreement was to free [the infringing manufacturer] of its liability for infringement, paragraph 5 of the agreement (the covenant not to sue) would have been fully sufficient to serve that purpose. Paragraph 3 [the license provision], however, goes much further by granting [the infringing manufacturer] an affirmative right to engage in the manufacture and sale of accelerometers to be used in tilt-sensitive control boxes. That grant comes without restriction of any kind.
Id. at 1101. The court in Jacobs was differentiating between settlement terms for the express purpose of determining the contracting parties' intent in the context of an implied license analysis. As the Supreme Court explained in Quanta, however, the parties' intent with respect to downstream customers is of no moment in a patent exhaustion analysis. See Quanta, 128 S.Ct. at 2122 () . The analysis in Jacobs, therefore, does not apply here.
Rather, our analysis begins with the premise that one cannot convey what one does not own. This principle is particularly important in patent licensing, as the grant of a patent does not provide the patentee with an affirmative right to practice the patent but merely the right to exclude. See 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(1) (); see also Leatherman Tool Group Inc. v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 131 F.3d 1011, 1015 (Fed.Cir.1997) ( () )) . It follows, therefore, that a patentee, by license or otherwise, cannot convey an affirmative right to practice a patented invention by way of making, using, selling, etc.; the patentee can only convey a freedom from suit.
For this reason, the Supreme Court in De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, reiterated: "As a license passes no interest in the monopoly, it has been described as a mere waiver of the right to sue by the patentee." 273 U.S. 236, 242, 47 S.Ct. 366, 71 L.Ed. 625 (1927) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...to practice the patent, and the chips "embod[ied] the essential features" of the patented invention); Transcore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Univis Lens, 316 U.S. 241 (1942); Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 453 (1873); Bloomer v. Millinger, 68 ......
-
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...to practice the patent, and the chips "embod[ied] the essential features" of the patented invention); Transcore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Univis Lens, 316 U.S. 241 (1942); Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 453 (1873); Bloomer v. Millinger, 68 ......
-
Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S
...effectively extended a license to Corsair to sell the allegedly infringing CoolIT products. See TransCore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp. , 563 F.3d 1271, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining that "this court and its predecessors have on numerous occasions explained that a non-exclu......
-
The Chamberlain Group Inc. v. Lear Corp..
...which bestows upon its owner a right to exclude, but not an affirmative right to practice. See, e.g., TransCore LP v. Elec. Trans. Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271, 1275 (Fed.Cir.2009). JCI is correct to point out that the existence of a patent on the accused process is not dispositive on t......
-
Draft License And Settlement Agreements Carefully: Covenant Not To Sue Can Bar Future Litigation On Continuation Patents
...Patents and noted that the controlling case on the implied license question is TransCore v. Electronic Translation Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In TransCore, the Federal Circuit found that TransCore had licensed its patent by covenanting not to sue on the patents and t......
-
Preliminary Injunction Upheld To Enforce Forum Selection Clause Where Continuations Of Licensed Patents Are Impliedly Licensed
...of New Mexico. The district court, following the Federal Circuit's holding in TransCore v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009), granted the preliminary injunction enforcing the forum selection clause of the Settlement Agreement. In the TransCore case, Tr......
-
The Treatment of Specific Licensing Issues
...not to sue authorizes sales by the covenantee for purposes of patent exhaustion.” Transcore, Lp v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 282. 304 U.S. 175 (1938), aff’d on reh’g, 305 U.S. 124 (1938). 283. Conduct falling within the scope of protection in......
-
Table of cases
...2000), 43, 227, 228 Toys “R” Us, Inc. v. FTC, 221 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2000), 21 Transcore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp. 563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009), 94 Transparent-Wrap Mach. Corp. v. Stokes & Smith Co., 329 U.S. 637 (1947), 137, 138, 398, 457 TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovat......
-
Chapter §19.03 Absence of Liability for Infringement
...be recovered for infringements that occurred prior to filing of lawsuit).[9] See TransCore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp., 563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009), in which the court observed: [T]he Supreme Court in De Forest Radio Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United States, reiterated: ......
-
Antitrust Analysis Of Intellectual Property Agreements
...Co. v. United States, 273 U.S. 236, 242 (1927); Waterman , 138 U.S. at 255; Transcore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp. 563 F.3d 1271, 1275-76 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Analysis of Intellectual Property Agreements 95 license of intellectual property that does not contain any restraint......