Zila, Inc. v. Tinnell

How courts have described this case

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

• indicating that under Scheiber, the portion of the licensing agreement that seeks to extend the patent term is void
• noting that a court’s “task is not to expand Brulotte’s holding beyond its terms”
• collecting appellate cases, noting that “this rule is not seriously in dispute”
• “Nor does Brulotte extend its royalty-canceling powers to contracts for foreign patents. Brulotte concerned patent rights in the United States . . . .”
• because of the “particularly strong national uniformity concerns” in patent law, we are especially “hesit[ant]” to open up conflicts with other circuits in this area
• “Brulotte 16 renders unenforceable only that portion of a license agreement that demands royalty 17 payments beyond the expiration of the patent for which the royalties are paid.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).