CSU sued Xerox, claiming that the copier manufacturer's refusal to sell patented parts and copyrighted manuals and to license copyrighted software violated antitrust laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the copier manufacturer, and CSU appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the copier manufacturer's refusal to sell or license its patented parts did not violate antitrust laws.
Intellectual property rights do not confer a privilege to violate the antitrust laws. But it is also correct that the antitrust laws do not negate the patentee's right to exclude others from patent property. The commercial advantage gained by new technology and its statutory protection by patent does not convert the possessor thereof into a prohibited monopolist. The patent right must be 'coupled with violations of § 2,' and the elements of violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2 must be met. Determination of whether the patentee meets the Sherman Act elements of monopolization or attempt to monopolize is governed by the rules of application of the antitrust laws to market participants, with due consideration to the exclusivity that inheres in the patent grant.
1. Is there a conflict between antitrust laws and IPR laws? If so, how can such a conflict be resolved by the legislature or the courts?
2. Should the courts or the legislature impose a duty to license to prevent a company to monopolize a market?