{
  "id": "RS22421",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS22421",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 314128,
      "date": "2006-04-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:05:17.342029",
      "title": "Antitrust Effect of Patent on Tying Product: Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.",
      "summary": "Antitrust law generally disfavors tying arrangements--those in which a vendor conditions the sale\nof a desired product on the purchase of another (possibly not-so-desired) product. Not only have\ntying arrangements been considered unlawful as violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15\nU.S.C. Section 1), they were determined to be  per se  (automatically) unlawful. It was\nassumed,\nuntil at least the late-1970s, first, that such arrangements were only possible because the seller\npossessed sufficient market power in the tying product to allow him to create the tie; and second, that\nthey served no purpose other than the suppression of competition in the market for the tied\n(unwanted) product. Then, in  U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enterprises, Inc.  (429 U.S.  610\n(1977),\n Fortner II ), the Supreme Court recognized that there might be a reason other than a\nseller\u2019s ability\nto \u201cforce\u201d a buyer to accept the tie, i.e., that the fact of buyer acceptance was not\nnecessarily an\nindication that the seller possessed market power in the tying product. However, it has continued\nto be assumed, since the doctrine of patent misuse was imported into antitrust jurisprudence in\n International Salt Co. v. U.S.  (332 U.S.  392 (1947)), that because a patent gives the owner\na\nmonopoly on the commercial exploitation of the patented product, it also creates the presumption\nof sufficient market power to allow the owner to force a tie between the patented product and some,\nunpatented product. Congress eliminated that presumption in the patent area when it amended the\nPatent Act in 1988; in  Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.  (547 U.S. ____, No.\n04-1329,\ndecided March 1, 2006), the Court eliminated the presumption in antitrust law: \u201cToday ...\nwe hold\nthat, in  all  cases involving a tying arrangement,  the plaintiff must prove  that the\ndefendant has market\npower in the tying product.\u201d (Slip opinion at 16, emphasis added.)",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22421",
          "sha1": "2fc2e48b4dec3a79dd46d8d03ddcfb1f664355c2",
          "filename": "files/20060413_RS22421_2fc2e48b4dec3a79dd46d8d03ddcfb1f664355c2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22421",
          "sha1": "60f309734a4e6e3f012e5d3f36dbdffb574c4da3",
          "filename": "files/20060413_RS22421_60f309734a4e6e3f012e5d3f36dbdffb574c4da3.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}