Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., et al.
395 U.S. 100 (1969)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent holder engages in patent misuse by conditioning the grant of a patent license on the licensee's agreement to pay royalties on products that do not use the teachings of the patent. While a royalty structure based on total sales is permissible if entered into for the mutual convenience of both parties, it constitutes misuse if the patentee uses their monopoly power to coerce an unwilling licensee into accepting it.
Facts:
- Zenith Radio Corporation (Zenith) manufactures and sells radios and televisions, a business that requires licensing patented devices.
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. (HRI) owns a portfolio of over 500 domestic patents in the electronics field and licenses them to manufacturers like Zenith.
- Until 1959, Zenith licensed HRI's patents under a 'package license' agreement.
- When the license was due for renewal in 1959, HRI insisted that Zenith accept its standard five-year package license, which required Zenith to pay royalties on its total sales of radios and televisions, irrespective of whether any HRI patents were used in the products.
- Zenith refused this total-sales royalty provision, proposing instead to pay royalties only for the specific HRI patents it actually used, but HRI rejected this alternative.
- HRI, through its parent company Hazeltine, also participated in foreign patent pools in Canada, England, and Australia.
- These patent pools, particularly the Canadian one, refused to grant licenses for the importation of American-made goods, including Zenith's, effectively blocking Zenith from exporting to those markets unless it agreed to manufacture its products locally.
Procedural Posture:
- Hazeltine Research, Inc. (HRI) filed a patent infringement suit against Zenith Radio Corporation (Zenith) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Zenith filed a counterclaim against HRI for damages and injunctive relief, alleging patent misuse and violations of the Sherman Act through a conspiracy with HRI's parent, Hazeltine Corp., and foreign patent pools.
- The District Court, sitting without a jury, found for Zenith, awarding treble damages for both patent misuse and the antitrust conspiracy.
- The District Court entered judgment against both HRI and Hazeltine Corp., based on a pretrial stipulation that they be treated as a single entity.
- HRI and Hazeltine Corp. appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment against Hazeltine Corp. for lack of personal jurisdiction, affirmed the patent misuse damages against HRI but modified the related injunction, and reversed the conspiracy damage award, finding Zenith had failed to prove it suffered any actual injury.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a patent holder engage in patent misuse by conditioning the grant of a patent license on the licensee's agreement to pay royalties based on total sales, including for products that do not use the patented invention, over the licensee's objection and proposal to pay royalties only for actual use?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice White
Yes. Conditioning the grant of a patent license upon the payment of royalties on products which do not use the teaching of the patent amounts to patent misuse. A patentee may not use the leverage of their patent to derive a benefit not attributable to the use of the patent's teachings, such as collecting royalties on unpatented goods. The Court distinguished its prior holding in Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., explaining that a total-sales royalty provision is permissible if it is adopted for the mutual convenience of the parties to simplify accounting. However, it becomes impermissible patent misuse when the patentee uses their monopoly power to insist on such a provision and overrides the licensee's protestations and request to pay only for actual use. Such coercion extends the patent monopoly beyond its lawful scope.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice Harlan
No. Justice Harlan concurred with the Court's holdings on jurisdiction and antitrust damages but dissented from its patent misuse analysis. He argued that the majority's distinction between a royalty provision adopted for 'convenience' versus one 'insisted upon' by the patentee creates an unworkable and uncertain legal standard. This test would require difficult judicial inquiries into the nuances of private negotiations, and savvy licensors could easily fabricate a record to show the provision was mutually convenient. He contended the majority was effectively overruling Automatic Radio without a sound economic or legal rationale and that the Court should have either adhered to that precedent or adopted a clear per se rule regarding such royalty provisions.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the doctrine of patent misuse by focusing on the element of coercion in licensing negotiations. By distinguishing its precedent in Automatic Radio, the Court narrowed the legality of total-sales royalty agreements, making them vulnerable to challenge if imposed on an unwilling licensee. The ruling empowers licensees by affirming their right to request and receive royalty terms based on actual patent use, thereby preventing patentees from leveraging their monopoly to extract payments on unpatented products. This 'coercion test' has had a lasting impact on patent licensing, requiring licensors to offer more flexible terms and carefully document negotiations to avoid misuse claims.
Unlock the full brief for Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., et al.