Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

U.S. Philips Corp. v. International Trade Commission

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
424 F.3d 1179 (2005)


Facts

United States Philips Corporation (Philips) (plaintiff) owned patents disclosing technology used to create recordable and rewritable compact discs. Philips licensed the patents in packages, charging a uniform royalty for each disc a licensee manufactured using any patent in the patent pool. The same royalty applied even if the licensee used only some of the patents in the license package. Philips did not offer individual patent licenses. Philips licensed patent packages to a number of compact-disc manufacturers (defendants), including Princo Corporation and Princo America Corporation (Princo), GigaStorage Corporation Taiwan and GigaStorage Corporation (USA) (GigaStorage), and Linberg Enterprise, Inc. (Linberg). The compact-disc manufacturers stopped paying the licensing fees. Philips filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC), contending that the compact-disc manufacturers imported infringing discs into the United States. The compact-disc manufacturers argued that the Philips patents were invalid because Philips misused the patents by offering only patent packages. In particular, the compact-disc manufacturers claimed that the packages included licenses for patents inessential to manufacturing compact discs. The administrative law judge found the licensing packages to be illegal tying arrangements and held the patents unenforceable. Philips appealed. The ITC affirmed, finding that the licensing package arrangements were per se misuse, or alternatively invalid under a rule-of-reason analysis. Philips appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.