Posted by Jeff from pcp01169382pcs.roylok01.mi.comcast.net (68.62.14.216) on Friday, September 06, 2002 at 3:12PM :
In Reply to: Down At The Courthouse.... posted by panch from ? (63.164.145.161) on Friday, September 06, 2002 at 12:45PM :
This defense emerged from the equitable affirmative defense of "unclean hands." See Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co 314 U.S. 488 at 492-93 (1942) (linking patent misuse to the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands"). The unclean hands doctrine is "invoked by a court only when a plaintiff otherwise entitled to relief has acted so improperly with respect to the controversy . . . that the public interest in punishing the plaintiff outweighs the need to prevent defendant's tortious conduct." See B.M.I., Inc. v. Hearst, 746 F. Supp. 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In response, the related patent misuse doctrine requires that the alleged infringer show that the patentee has impermissibly broadened the 'physical or temporal scope' of the patent grant with anticompetitive effect.
This defense emerged from the equitable affirmative defense of "unclean hands." See Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co 314 U.S. 488 at 492-93 (1942) (linking patent misuse to the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands"). The unclean hands doctrine is "invoked by a court only when a plaintiff otherwise entitled to relief has acted so improperly with respect to the controversy . . . that the public interest in punishing the plaintiff outweighs the need to prevent defendant's tortious conduct." See B.M.I., Inc. v. Hearst, 746 F. Supp. 320 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). In response, the related patent misuse doctrine requires that the alleged infringer show that the patentee has impermissibly broadened the 'physical or temporal scope' of the patent grant with anticompetitive effect.
-- Jeff
-- signature .
Follow Ups: