Opinion ID: 763547
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commercial Viability Requirement

Text: 19 The district court required that any potential noninfringing method be commercially viable, i.e., that it permit the user to sell the resulting device at a profit and afford the development and continuation of an ongoing business. GED I, 929 F.Supp. at 229 (citing Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp., 846 F.Supp. 522, 541 (E.D.Tex.1994), for definition of commercially viable). Applying this definition, the court held that only the most profitable method of using the corner keys would be acceptable. See id. at 230 (If the linear extrusion method is more profitable than other methods of making insulated windows using folding, locking corner keys, then such methods cannot 'afford the development and continuation of an ongoing business.' ). The court's requirement that an acceptable noninfringing use be the most profitable alternative was incorrect. 20 In Bandag, we held that a legally acceptable noninfringing use need not be as profitable as the patented method--it need only be reasonable. 3 Given the undisputed facts of this case, we hold that Besten did not meet its burden to show that there are no noninfringing uses of the folding, locking corner keys sold by Allmetal under the apparatus patent license. Besten's failure to meet its burden with respect to this element of the applicable implied license test compels us to reverse the district court's grant of a summary judgment in favor of Besten on the implied license issue.