From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
616 F.3d 1318, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1233 (2010)
During the 1980s and 1990s, Philips Corporation and Sony Corporation collaborated to develop technical standards to ensure that compact discs made by different manufacturers would be compatible and playable on machines designed to read earlier versions of the technology. The standards were compiled in a publication that was referred to as the Orange Book. Philips and Sony had each developed a different method for dealing with a particular encoding issue. After considering the competing solutions, engineers for the two companies decided to adopt Philips’s approach and began to offer licenses to the patents that were necessary to manufacture compact discs that complied with the Orange Book standards. The licenses included field-of-use restrictions that limited licensees to using the licensed patents to produce discs according to the Orange Book standards, which followed the Philips approach. The agreement between Philips and Sony compensated Sony with royalty payments for not using its patents. Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation (collectively, Princo) (plaintiffs) entered into a license agreement with Philips but shortly thereafter stopped paying the licensing fees due under the agreement. Philips filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (commission) (defendant), alleging that Princo was violating the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing compact discs that infringed Philips’s patents. The case was decided by an administrative-law judge and appealed to the commission and then to the appellate court, which remanded the case to the commission. On remand, Princo argued that Philips had committed patent misuse by colluding with Sony to fix the price of patent licenses in the market and inducing Sony not to license its competing patents. The commission rejected Princo’s patent-misuse argument, and Princo appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.