Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the application of U.S. antitrust law to "tying" arrangements of patented products.[1] The Court ruled unanimously[2] that there is not a presumption of market power under the Sherman Antitrust Act when the sale of a patented product is conditioned on the sale of a second product in a tying arrangement. A plaintiff alleging an antitrust violation must instead establish the defendant's market power in the patented product through evidence.
Quick Facts Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc., Argued November 29, 2005 Decided March 1, 2006 ...
Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. | |
---|---|
Argued November 29, 2005 Decided March 1, 2006 | |
Full case name | Illinois Tool Works Incorporated, et al. v. Independent Ink, Incorporated |
Docket no. | 04-1329 |
Citations | 547 U.S. 28 (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment granted to defendant, sub nom. Indep. Ink v. Trident, Inc., 210 F. Supp. 2d 1155 (C.D. Cal. 2002); affirmed in part, reversed in part, sub nom. Indep. Ink, Inc. v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., 396 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 545 U.S. 1127 (2005). |
Subsequent | On remand at Indep. Ink, Inc. v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 10770 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 2006) |
Holding | |
A product involved in a tying arrangement is not presumed to have market power for purposes of establishing an antitrust violation by the mere fact that it is patented. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Stevens, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2 (§§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) |
Close