This HTML5 document contains 119 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n8https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
n20https://scholar.google.com/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n19https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n14https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/145800/quanta-computer-inc-v-lg-electronics-inc/
n21https://www.leagle.com/decision/
n15https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n17https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/617/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc.
rdf:type
dbo:Case yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:Event100029378 yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCasesOfTheRobertsCourt yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases dbo:UnitOfWork owl:Thing yago:Case107308889 dbo:LegalCase yago:Abstraction100002137 yago:Happening107283608 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity wikidata:Q2334719
rdfs:label
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
rdfs:comment
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The decision made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that it is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to engage the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented
foaf:name
Quanta Computer, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. LG Electronics, Inc.
dcterms:subject
dbc:Quanta_Computer dbc:2008_in_United_States_case_law dbc:United_States_patent_case_law dbc:United_States_misuse_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbc:LG_Electronics
dbo:wikiPageID
20302725
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1122094467
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Claim_(patent) dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit dbr:Trade_secret dbr:L._Ed._2d dbc:Quanta_Computer dbr:Non-derogation_doctrine dbr:Microprocessor dbr:Jeffrey_Wall dbc:2008_in_United_States_case_law dbr:En_banc dbr:United_States_Solicitor_General dbr:Tortious_interference dbr:Patent_infringement dbr:Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States dbr:Lexmark dbr:Zenith_Radio_Corp._v._Hazeltine_Research,_Inc. dbr:Clarence_Thomas dbr:Amicus_curiae dbr:Ethyl_Gasoline_Corp._v._United_States dbr:F.3d dbr:Quanta_Computer dbr:Doctrine_of_the_Lincoln_Engineering_case dbr:British_Leyland_Motor_Corp._v._Armstrong_Patents_Co. dbr:Antitrust_law dbc:United_States_misuse_law dbr:Field_of_use dbc:United_States_patent_case_law dbr:LG_Electronics dbr:Sua_sponte dbr:Tie-in dbr:Intellectual_property dbr:United_States_v._Univis_Lens_Co. dbr:United_States_v._General_Electric_Co. dbr:Fed._Cir. dbr:Rule_of_reason dbr:Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law dbr:National_Lockwasher_Co._v._George_K._Garrett_Co. dbr:Intel dbr:House_of_Lords dbr:F._Supp._2d dbr:United_States_Patents_Quarterly dbc:LG_Electronics dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Third_Circuit dbr:Certiorari dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Price_fixing dbr:Mallinckrodt,_Inc._v._Medipart,_Inc. dbr:Post-sale_restraint dbr:General_Talking_Pictures_Corp._v._Western_Electric_Co. dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Roberts_Court dbr:N.D._Cal.
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n8:06-937.ZS.html n14: n20:scholar_case%3Fcase=8144419637375231952 n21:20031160248fsupp2d91211077 n21:20061817453f3d136411812 n15:06-937 n17:
owl:sameAs
freebase:m.04zwnwg n19:4tyLq wikidata:Q7268884 yago-res:Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc.
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Ussc dbt:Reflist dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Quote
dbp:docket
6
dbp:joinmajority
unanimous
dbp:oyez
n15:06-937
dbp:parallelcitations
17280.0
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:uspage
617
dbp:usvol
553
dbp:arguedate
0001-01-16
dbp:argueyear
2008
dbp:case
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
dbp:courtlistener
n14:
dbp:decidedate
0001-06-09
dbp:decideyear
2008
dbp:fullname
Quanta Computer, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. LG Electronics, Inc.
dbp:holding
Patent license language insufficient to create limited license and avoid effect of exhaustion doctrine; exhaustion doctrine applies to method claims and to authorized sale of article that substantially embodies claimed invention.
dbp:justia
n17:
dbp:litigants
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
dbp:majority
Thomas
dbo:abstract
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court reaffirmed the validity of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The decision made uncertain the continuing precedential value of a line of decisions in the Federal Circuit that had sought to limit Supreme Court exhaustion doctrine decisions to their facts and to require a so-called "rule of reason" analysis of all post-sale restrictions other than tie-ins and price fixes. In the course of restating the patent exhaustion doctrine, the Court held that it is triggered by, among other things, an authorized sale of a component when the only reasonable and intended use of the component is to engage the patent and the component substantially embodies the patented invention by embodying its essential features. The Court also overturned, in passing, the part of decision below that held that the exhaustion doctrine was limited to product claims and did not apply to method claims.
dbp:cornell
n8:06-937.ZS.html
dbp:googlescholar
n20:scholar_case%3Fcase=8144419637375231952
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc.?oldid=1122094467&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
41750
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc.