Quanta Computer v. LG (decision summary)

Even though this case emerges from the difficult world of patent law, I think the Court smelled a sort of "rat" in it and so unanimously reversed the Court of Federal Claims to hold that LG Electronics's patent rights had been exhausted once its patents were combined with Intel microprocessors and sold to OEM's, such as Quanta Computer. Thus, an agreement between Intel and LG, to the effect that combining LG's parts with Intel's microprocessors would still not exhaust LG's patents, thus making OEM's liable to LG when the OEM's put the microprocessors in their computers and attempted to sell them, was of no effect. So, ultimately, it was the "longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion," which limits the patent rights that survive the initial authorized sale of a patented item, which saved Quanta in this case. I will summarize the facts of the case and the way that the Court argued (opinion by Thomas).

Facts in Brief

"Respondent (LGE) purchased, inter alia, the computer technology patents at issue (LGE Patents): One discloses a system for ensuring that most current data are retrieved from main memory, one relates to the coordination of requests to read from and write to main memory, and one addresses the problem of managing data traffic on a set of wires, or “bus,” connecting two computer components. LGE licensed the patents to Intel Corporation (Intel), in an agreement (License Agreement) that authorizes Intel to manufacture and sell microprocessors and chipsets using the LGE Patents (Intel Products) and that does not purport to alter patent exhaustion rules. A separate agreement (Master Agreement) required Intel to give its customers written notice that the license does not extend to a product made by combining an Intel Product with a non-Intel product, and provided that a breach of the agreement would not affect the License Agreement. Petitioner computer manufacturers (Quanta) purchased microprocessors and chipsets from Intel. Quanta then manufactured computers using Intel parts in combination with non-Intel parts, but did not modify the Intel components. LGE sued, asserting that this combination infringed the LGE Patents. The District Court granted Quanta summary judgment, but on reconsideration, denied summary judgment as to the LGE Patents because they contained method claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, agreeing with the District Court that the patent exhaustion doctrine does not apply to method patents, which describe operations to make or use a product; and concluding, in the alternative, that exhaustion did not apply because LGE did not license Intel to sell the Intel Products to Quanta to combine with non-Intel products."

The Court's Legal Argument

Justice Thomas rested his case on the doctrine of patent exhaustion.

"The patent exhaustion doctrine provides that a patented item's initial authorized sale terminates all patent rights to that item. See, e.g., Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 14 L.Ed. 532. In the Court's most recent discussion of the doctrine, United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 62 S.Ct. 1088, 86 L.Ed. 1408, patents for finished eyeglass lenses, held by the respondent (Univis), did not survive the sale of lens blanks by the licensed manufacturer to wholesalers and finishing retailers who ground the blanks into patented finished lenses. The Court assumed that Univis' patents were practiced in part by the wholesalers and finishing retailers, concluding that the traditional bar on patent restrictions following an item's sale applies when the item sufficiently embodies the patent-even if it does not completely practice the patent-such that its only and intended use is to be finished under the patent's terms."

If this, then, is the Court's approach to patent exhaustion, how does it relate to LG's claim?

"Nothing in this Court's approach to patent exhaustion supports LGE's argument that method claims, as a category, are never exhaustible. A patented method may not be sold in the same way as an article or device, but methods nonetheless may be “embodied” in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights. The Court has repeatedly found method patents exhausted by the sale of an item embodying the method. See Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 446, 457, 60 S.Ct. 618, 84 L.Ed. 852; Univis, supra, at 248-251, 62 S.Ct. 1088. These cases rest on solid footing. Eliminating exhaustion for method patents would seriously undermine the exhaustion doctrine, since patentees seeking to avoid exhaustion could simply draft their claims to describe a method rather than an apparatus. On LGE's theory here, for example, although Intel is authorized to sell a completed computer system that practices the LGE Patents, downstream purchasers could be liable for patent infringement, which would violate the longstanding principle that, when a patented item is “once lawfully made and sold, there is no restriction on [its] use to be implied for the [patentee's] benefit,” Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453, 457, 21 L.Ed. 700."

Thus, on the crucial issue of "method" claims, the Court held that they, too, can be exhausted, and in fact, that they were exhausted in this case. It would take a lot more work for me to think through the difference between "apparatus or composition-of-matter claims that describe a physical object" and "method claims that describe operations to make or use a product," and to decide whether the latter should be less subject to exhaustion requirements than the former. Both lower courts held that they were, but the Supremes held that they were not.

Then the Court moved to the application of the Univis case to the facts at hand:

"The Intel Products embodied the patents here. Univis governs this case. There, exhaustion was triggered by the sale of the lens blanks because their only reasonable and intended use was to practice the patent and because they “embodie[d] essential features of [the] patented invention,” 316 U.S., at 249-251, 62 S.Ct. 1088. Each of those attributes is shared by the microprocessors and chipsets Intel sold to Quanta under the License Agreement. First, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel's sales was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents. Second, like the Univis lens blanks, the Intel Products constitute a material part of the patented invention and all but completely practice the patent. The only step necessary to practice the patent is the application of common processes or the addition of standard parts. Everything inventive about each patent is embodied in the Intel Products. LGE's attempts to distinguish Univis are unavailing."

Now we are ready for the Court's conclusion:

"Intel's sale to Quanta exhausted LGE's patent rights. Exhaustion is triggered only by a sale authorized by the patent holder. Univis, supra, at 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088. LGE argues that this sale was not authorized because the License Agreement does not permit Intel to sell its products for use in combination with non-Intel products to practice the LGE Patents. But the License Agreement does not restrict Intel's right to sell its products to purchasers who intend to combine them with non-Intel parts. Intel was required to give its customers notice that LGE had not licensed those customers to practice its patents, but neither party contends that Intel breached that agreement. In any event, the notice provision is in the Master Agreement, and LGE does not suggest that a breach of that agreement would constitute a License Agreement breach. Contrary to LGE's position, the question whether third parties may have received implied licenses is irrelevant, because Quanta asserts its right to practice the patents based not on implied license but on exhaustion, and exhaustion turns only on Intel's own license to sell products practicing the LGE Patents. LGE's alternative argument, invoking the principle that patent exhaustion does not apply to postsale restrictions on “making” an article, is simply a rephrasing of its argument that combining the Intel Products with other components adds more than standard finishing to complete a patented article."

There you have it--9-0 for the OEM's.

3565