The company LI sells the only style of catridge which works with the company’s printer. The other companies acquired the used cartridges and refurbished them to sell them in competition with LI. The company offered a twenty percent discount to customers if they returned the used cartridges of the company. The company SSC was involved in making and selling of the remanufactured cartridges. LI released an advertisement to claim that the products sold by the company are violating the patent rights of LI. A legal suit was filed by LI in federal district court for violation of the intellectual property right. The company SSC countered the claim by alleging that the company LI did false advertisement. The counterclaim was dismissed and the court ordered that company SSC had no right to sue the company LI. Company SSC appealed to the appellate court. The appellate court reversed the decision. The company LI appealed to the supreme court and won. To find: Whether SSC is entitled to relief under the court’s ruling.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 24, Problem 4CT

Summary Introduction

Case summary : The company LI sells the only style of catridge which works with the company’s printer. The other companies acquired the used cartridges and refurbished them to sell them in competition with LI. The company offered a twenty percent discount to customers if they returned the used cartridges of the company. The company SSC was involved in making and selling of the remanufactured cartridges. LI released an advertisement to claim that the products sold by the company are violating the patent rights of LI. A legal suit was filed by LI in federal district court for violation of the intellectual property right. The company SSC countered the claim by alleging that the company LI did false advertisement. The counterclaim was dismissed and the court ordered that company SSC had no right to sue the company LI. Company SSC appealed to the appellate court. The appellate court reversed the decision. The company LI appealed to the supreme court and won.

To find: Whether SSC is entitled to relief under the court’s ruling.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Manchester United Soccer Club Nicolette Larson was loading the dishwasher with her husband, Kevin, and telling him about the first meeting of the Manchester United Tournament Organizing Committee. Nicolette, a self-confessed “soccer mom,” had been elected tournament director and was responsible for organizing the club’s first summer tournament. Manchester United Soccer Club (MUSC), located in Manchester, New Hampshire, was formed in 1992 as a way of bringing recreational players to a higher level of competition and preparing them for the State Olympic Development Program and/or high school teams. The club currently has 24 boys and girls (ranging in age from under 9 to 16) on teams affiliated with the New Hampshire Soccer Association and the Granite State Girls Soccer League. The club’s board of directors decided in the fall to sponsor a summer invitational soccer tournament to generate revenue. Given the boom in youth soccer, hosting summer tournaments has become a popular method for…

What is the Parol Evidence Rule? Please describe one circumstance in which you believe the rule should be followed and why? Please describe a circumstance in which you believe the rule should not be followed and why? Please not, this is business law question. Thank you.