Homework answers / question archive / Topic is "essential Fascility doctrine and how that applies to refusal to licensing

Topic is "essential Fascility doctrine and how that applies to refusal to licensing

Law

Share With

Topic is "essential Fascility doctrine and how that applies to refusal to licensing." I have also attached resources and below message is given to me by prof/

"essential facilities” doctrine and how that might apply to a refusal to license. I think it would be a better project for you to develop that section more analytically. I think that will be more productive; and it would be a good wrap-up of a number of issues we discussed, and therefore would be a better learning experience than trying to take on all of the topics you treated in the draft. I hope you agree.

Here are some thoughts to get you started:

In Trinko, Justice Scalia wrote: “We have never recognized [the essential facilities] doctrine … and we find no need to recognize it or to repudiate it here. It suffices for present to note that the indispensable requirement for invoking the doctrine is the unavailability of access to the ‘essential facilities’ …..” The Circuit courts have understood this in different ways. Some think that Scalia’s overall negativity forecloses relying on the essential facilities doctrine; others think that it can still be relied on. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, continues to think that it is viable (Aerotec v. Honeywell, 836 F.3d 1171, MetroNet Services v. Qwest Corp., 383 F.3d 1124, and a few California district courts e.g., North Star Gas v. Pacific Gas & Electric)). How should the doctrine be applied in the context of a refusal to license a patent? Since (as we discussed) the essential element of patent protection is the right to exclude others from using it, unless they are licensed, how might you harmonize a court-ordered requirement to license with the rights of a patentholder? Suppose that the patentholder denied the renewal of a license to a licensee where the expired license had been profitable for both parties. Should that matter (think Aspen Skiing)?

please use many law cases from above big message and from google for US law