Patent monopoly and doctrine of exhaustion: Limits on exclusive right

Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 453-462

  Himanshu, Vijay Kumar ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELHI   (India)

Author keywords

Doctrine of exhaustion; Monopoly; Patent

Indexed keywords

EID: 80855156811     PISSN: 09717544     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bently Lionel and Sherman Brad, Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press, New Delhi), 2003, p. 512-521.
2. Rinechart Amelia Smith, Contracting patent: A modern patent exhaustion doctrine, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 23 (2) (2010) 484-485.
3. Cornish W and Llewellyn D, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 6th edn (Sweet & Maxwell, London), 2008, p. 251-252, 258-259.
4. Mossoff Adam, Exclusion and exclusive use in patent law, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 22 (2) (2009) 352-358.
5. Davoll v Brown, 7 F Cas 197, 199 (CCD Mass 1845).
6. Bloomer v McQuewan, 55 US (14 How) 539, 549 (1852).
7. Rinechart Amelia Smith, Contracting patent: A modern patent exhaustion doctrine, Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 23 (2) (2010) 491-492.
8. Bauer & Cie v O'Donnell, 229 US, 17 1 (1913), Reasoning that such restrictions were 'beyond the protection and purpose of the [Patent] Act'.
9. Motion Picture Patents Co v Universal Film Co, 243 US 502, 506 (1917).
10. General Talking Pictures Corp v Westeran Electric Co, 304 US 175, 181 (1938).
11. Mallinckrodt Inc v Medipart Inc, 976 F.2d, 700 (Fed Cir 1992).
12. United States v Univis Lens Co, 316 US 241, 250-51 (1942).
13. Quanta Computer Inc v LG Electronics Inc, 553 US 617, 128 S CT 2109-2120 (2008).
14. Dong Yina, A patent exhaustion exposition: Situating Quanta v LGE in context of Supreme Court jurisprudence, Stanford Technology Law Review, N2 (2010) 1-3, http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/dong-a-patentexhaustion-xposition.pdf.
15. Cyrix Corp v Intel Corp, 846 F Supp 522 (ED Tex 1994).
16. Adams v Burke, 84 US (17 Wall) 453 (1873).
17. Keeler v Standard Folding Bed Co, 157 US 659 (1895).
18. Mitchell v Hawley, 83 US (16 Wall) 544 (1873).
19. Henry v A B Dick Co, 224 US 1 (1912).
20. Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy, Report of the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR, London), 2002, http://www.iprcommission.org/graphic/documents/final_report.htm.