Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A company tied the sale of its patented printheads to the purchase of its unpatented ink. The Supreme Court held that a patent on a “tying” product does not automatically create a presumption of market power, requiring plaintiffs to prove it in antitrust tying cases.
Legal Significance: The case eliminated the long-standing presumption that a patent confers market power in antitrust tying claims. It harmonized antitrust law with modern economic theory and congressional amendments to patent law, requiring plaintiffs to prove market power for all tying arrangements involving a patented product.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) manufactured and sold a printing system that included a patented piezoelectric impulse ink jet printhead (the tying product) and specially designed, but unpatented, ink (the tied product). ITW licensed its patented printheads and ink containers to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) on the condition that the OEMs purchase their ink exclusively from ITW. Respondent Independent Ink, Inc., developed a chemically identical, unpatented ink and sought to compete with ITW. Independent Ink filed suit, alleging that ITW’s requirement to purchase its ink constituted an illegal tying arrangement in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act. At the district court, Independent Ink moved for summary judgment, arguing that ITW’s patent on the printhead created a presumption of market power, rendering the tying arrangement a per se violation of antitrust law. Independent Ink offered no affirmative evidence defining the relevant market or establishing ITW’s power within it. The District Court granted summary judgment for ITW, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that Supreme Court precedent compelled the application of a market power presumption.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the existence of a patent on a tying product create a presumption of market power sufficient to support a claim of a per se illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?
No. The Court held that a patent does not create a presumption Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the existence of a patent on a tying product create a presumption of market power sufficient to support a claim of a per se illegal tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?
Conclusion
This decision formally abandoned the per se rule for tying arrangements involving Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
Legal Rule
In all cases involving a tying arrangement under Section 1 of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volu
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Stevens, engaged Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaec
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Court held that owning a patent on a tying product