Minnesota Law Review

Note, Combating Joint Ventures in Suppression: Taking Inventory of the Legal Arsenal

Companies may decide to leave patented technologies unused for numerous reasons, a great many of them legal. The patent laws confirm a company’s right to let a patent languish, unpracticed by anyone. But companies with patents on alternative technologies may agree to enter into a joint venture: promoting and licensing one alternative while suppressing the other. These arrangements have an anticompetitive flavor, particularly where there is substantial consideration flowing to the owner of the unused alternative technology. Because the public may ultimately benefit from promoting innovation over suppression, the Note asserts the law should deter these anticompetitive joint ventures. The Note looks at three currently available legal avenues: using antitrust law as it currently stands, expanding the doctrine of patent misuse, and eliminating incentives to form suppressive joint ventures by applying patent remedies differently. Ultimately, the Note argues that courts should make these arrangements unattractive to companies by awarding only discounted damages to aggrieved suppressors. This approach, where the damages are based on what is paid to the company for its unused technology, reduces the appeal of the most anticompetitive arrangements while still adequately compensating the patentee for its right to exclude.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]