Conditional Sale Doesn’t Trigger Patent Exhaustion
Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.10.06
In LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc. et al. , (No. 05-1261, July 7, 2006), a Federal Circuit panel affirms in part, reverses in part and vacates in part a district court's summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of third-party installers who purchase microprocessors and chipsets from Intel Corporation, which is itself authorized to sell such products under an agreement with LG Electronics (“LGE”). Under this agreement, however, Intel is required to notify its customers that combining Intel products with non-Intel products is not permitted.
In reversing the district court's holding that the system claims of LGE's asserted patents were “exhausted” by Intel's sales, the panel reasons that requiring Intel to notify its customers that they were prohibited from infringing LGE's combination patents makes both the license and subsequent sales by Intel expressly conditional and, as such, does not trigger the patent exhaustion doctrine.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
