In Re Independent Service Organizations Antitrust Litigation Csu

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Xerox’s policy of prohibiting its majority-owned European affiliate from selling parts was within scope of intellectual property grant
• noting that Xerox employed a scheme insuring that parts were not resold or otherwise used in machines not owned by the entity ordering the part, but nonetheless finding that the scheme did not run afoul of Xerox’s unilateral right not to deal patented and copyrighted works
• “It is the infringement defendant and not the patentee that bears the burden to show that one of these exceptional situations (for finding improper exclusionary conduct
• “We believe the First Circuit’s approach is more consistent with both the antitrust and the copyright laws and is the standard that would most likely be followed by the Tenth Circuit.”
• “Intellectual property rights do not confer a privilege to violate the antitrust laws.”
• “Intellectual property rights do not confer a privilege to violate the antitrust laws.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).