Court Opinion

ID: 9455178
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:13:42.602265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:29.575846
License: Public Domain

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result.
That portion of Judge Hufstedler’s opinion which states that Royal could not terminate the licensing agreement without the joinder or consent of its co-licensor, Plas-Ties, is sufficient to support affirmance of the summary judgment and I concur in this portion of the opinion.
The discussion concerning the parol evidence problem is dicta, since the decision does not rest upon it.
I would further affirm the judgment on another ground, relied upon by the district court. Assuming Royal’s contentions as to the price fixing agreement, the agreement violates the antitrust laws. The conflict between the antitrust laws and the rights arising under the patent monopoly have been discussed in many cases. The doctrine that a patent holder may fix the prices at which his licensee sells is a narrow one, and is limited to situations where the patent holder is also manufacturing and selling. United States v. General Electric Co., 272 U.S. 476, 47 S.Ct. 192, 71 L.Ed. 362 (1926) is limited to a situation where the “patentee licenses another to make and vend and retains the right to continue to make and vend on his own account,” 272 U.S. at 490, 47 S.Ct. at 197. See United States v. Line Material Company, 333 U.S. 287 (1948) at 310, 68 S. Ct. 550, 92 L.Ed. 701 and United States v. New Wrinkle, Inc., 342 U.S. 371 (1952) at 378, 72 S.Ct. 350, 96 L.Ed. 417.
In my opinion, the price fixing, assuming it existed, was illegal and in violation of the antitrust laws.