Source: http://www.yrats.com/jg/d39903839.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:04:06+00:00

Document:
??Abstract: US and Germany share the same position and principle in term of the relationship between the component sales and the exhaustion of combination patent, i.e. to prevent the patentee from obtaining double royalties. Case laws show that both countries recognize the sale of component can lead to the exhaustion of combination patent, but certain prerequisites must be met, i.e. the component must reflect the "essential features" of the patented combination and does not have any "non-infringinguse". "Essential features" refer to patentable technical features that are distinguishing over prior art, and "non-infringement use"means components can be "reasonably" used in a non-infringing manner.When the component does not reflect the "essential features" ofthe patented combination, US use implied license theory to infer the licensing use of the combination patent; German court shares the similar view. These experiences are beneficial to Chinese peers.
[⑨]例如LGElecs., Inc. v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1589 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
 EthylGasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436(1940).
Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., 553 U.S. at631(2008).
Id. at633( Everything inventive about each patent is embodied in the Intel Products.).
Cyrix Corp. v.Intel Corp. 846 F. Supp. 522 (E.D. Tex 1994), aff'd without op.,42F.3d 1411 (Fed. Cir.1994).
LG Elecs., Inc.v. Asustek Computer, Inc., 65 U.S.P.Q.2d 1589 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
Met-Coil Sys. Corp. v. Korners Unlimited, 803 F.2d 684,(Fed. Cir. 1986).
Id. at684, (Fed. Cir. 1986)(plainly indicate that the grant of a license should beinferred).
Elkay Mfg. v.EbCo Mfg., 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28092.
ElkayMfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co.,1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3074, No. 92-C-2487 (N.D Ill. Mar. 9, 1993).
类似的还有Anton/Bauer案。该案专利涉及将电池组连接到照相机的连接器，其中阴板与照相机或电池充电器等设备连接，阳板连接到电池组，但没有任何权利要求单独覆盖阴板或阳板，而阴板或阳板通常单独销售。该案法院认为，专利权人出售阴板是对该阴板所有权的完全转让，由于该阴板只能用于专利组合中，并且该组合必须由买方实施完成，因此，专利权人已经授予了顾客实施该专利组合的默示许可，顾客不可能构成直接侵权，被告也就不可能构成引诱侵权或辅助侵权。SeeAnton/Bauer, Inc, v. PAG, Ltd., 329 F.3d1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Bandag, Inc. v. Al Bolser's Tire Stores, Inc., 750 F.2d at 925, 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) at 998 (认为转售、修改和闲置都属于合理的非侵权用途).
See Western Elec. Co. v. General Talking Pictures Corp., 16 F. Supp. 293, 300 (S.D.N.Y.1936), affd, 91 F.2d 922(2d Cir. 1937), affd, 304 U.S. 175 (1938), affd on rehearing, 305 U.S. 124(1938)(判决销售部件时附带限制条件排除实施组合物专利且购买人知道时，专利权不用尽); Gordon v.Village of Lawrence, 443 N.Y.S.2d 415 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. 1981), af'd, 453N.Y.S.2d 683 (Court of Appeals, 1982)(专利许可协议的明示条款与不动产中的限制协议类似，如果后续购买者知晓该限制时，可以约束该购买者); Mallinckrodt,Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, 701 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Impression Products Inc v. Lexmark International Inc.,?137S. Ct. 1523 (2017).
Guajakol-Karbonat 51 RGZ 129 (Mar. 26,1902), referred to in D Keeling, IntellectualProperty Rights in EU Law: Volume I: Free Movement and Competition Law(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003) 75.
BGH, Fullplastverfahren, GRUR 1980, 38.
LGDüsseldorf,Datenübertragungssystem, Urteil vom 12.12.2013 - 4b O 88/12 U.
Id. (原文为wenn der wesentlichErfindungsgedanke beider Patente identisch ist und im Wesentlich in demEinzelbauteil verkoerpert ist).
有关英国的判例可参见ChristopherStothers, Patent Exhaustion: the UKPerspective, 16th Annual Conference onIntellectual Property Law and Policy,27-28 March 2008.
BGH 7.11. 1978 Schiessbolzen GRUR 1979,149.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.