Post-Sale Restraint in Business: Key Considerations and Regulations

Post-sale restraint in business can be a complex issue, but understanding the key considerations and regulations can help you navigate it successfully.

In the United States, the Sherman Act prohibits post-sale restraints that unreasonably restrain trade. This law applies to all businesses, regardless of size or industry.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has guidelines for evaluating the reasonableness of post-sale restraints, including whether they are necessary to protect legitimate business interests.

Post-sale restraint refers to the practice of limiting a buyer's ability to resell or distribute a product after purchasing it. This can include contractual agreements that restrict resale or distribution.

Contractual agreements can be included in the sales contract or invoice, and may specify the terms of resale or distribution. Some contracts may require buyers to obtain permission from the seller before reselling the product.

Post-sale restraint can be used to protect intellectual property, maintain quality control, or prevent the sale of counterfeit products. It's a common practice in industries such as software, pharmaceuticals, and luxury goods.

In some cases, post-sale restraint can be used to prevent the sale of products that are no longer supported or updated. This can be done to prevent buyers from reselling old or outdated products as new.

For another approach, see: Confidentiality Provisions in Settlement Agreements

The US Supreme Court has had a significant impact on the concept of post-sale restraints. In 1926, the Court made a distinction between post-sale restraints on patented goods and limitations imposed on manufacturing-licensees in the General Electric case.

The Court upheld the legitimacy of price-fixing restrictions that GE imposed on Westinghouse to manufacture light bulbs under GE's patents. This ruling established that licensed goods made under a limited license are subject to the limitations of the license, even when in the hands of a downstream purchaser.

In the 1967 case of United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., the Court found that post-sale restraints on mass-marketed goods were illegal per se under the antitrust laws. This ruling seemed to contradict the earlier General Electric case.

However, in 1977, the Supreme Court overruled the Schwinn case in the Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc. case. The Court found that the distinction between sale and nonsale transactions was not sufficient to justify a per se rule in one situation and a rule of reason in the other.

In the 1992 Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. case, the Federal Circuit held that post-sale restrictions other than price-fixing or tie-ins were governed by the rule stated in the 1926 GE case for manufacturing licenses.

For another approach, see: Disadvantages of E Banking

A post-sale restraint must be reasonable to be enforceable. If the restraint is too broad, it may be deemed unreasonable. For example, a restraint that prohibits the seller from poaching employees from the buyer's corporate group is likely to be unenforceable.

The duration of a restraint is also a key factor. A restraint that lasts too long may be deemed unreasonable. The Court may consider the circumstances at the time the relief is being sought, including how long it takes to protect the buyer's goodwill.

The seller's activities must also pose a real commercial threat to the business. If the seller's product is not a direct substitute for the products of the business, it is unlikely that the threshold for competition will be met.

A different take: Buyer Brokerage

If competition is minimal, it's unlikely to meet the threshold for competition. The court considers the extent of any likely overlap in customers for the product.

In one case, the court held that any potential for competition was slight or insubstantial. This was because the software's product was not a direct substitute for the products of the business.

The court's decision suggests that a minimal overlap in customers is not enough to establish a breach of a post-sale restraint.

The Quanta case is a landmark example of how patent law interacts with antitrust law. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. that the sale of patented microprocessors exhausts the patent monopoly.

The court held that if the essential features of the invention are contained in the microprocessors, the sold article embodies the essential features of the patented invention. This means that once a product is sold, the patent holder's monopoly is limited to the product itself, not to the combination of the product with other components.

The Quanta case reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit, which had held that the licenses were effective under the Mallinckrodt doctrine. This doctrine is not further explained in the provided article section facts.

Take a look at this: The Money of Invention

A restraint can be deemed unreasonable if it extends beyond the employees of the business at the time of the sale, including employees of the buyer group. This was the case in a recent court decision.

The duration of a restraint is also a key factor in determining its reasonableness. If a restraint is too long, it may not be enforceable. The length of the restraint should be tied to the time it takes to protect the buyer's goodwill from being subtracted by the seller.

To determine the reasonableness of a restraint, consider the circumstances at the time the agreement is entered into. The court may also consider the circumstances at the time the injunction is being sought. In one case, the court took into account the fact that the seller had worked in the business for three years following completion, which greatly enhanced the buyer's ability to fully realize the benefit of the goodwill.

A unique perspective: Does Etsy Have Buyer Protection

A restraint may also be deemed unreasonable if it prohibits the seller from dealing with a supplier that does not harm the business. This was the case in a recent court decision, where the court held that a restraint prohibiting the seller from dealing with Microsoft, a key supplier of the business, was not reasonably necessary to protect the goodwill of the business and was therefore unenforceable.

To prove an alleged breach of a post-sale restraint, courts consider the specific terms of the contract. The more restrictive the contract, the more difficult it is to prove a breach.

Courts examine the reasonableness of the restraint in relation to the legitimate business interests of the employer. This means they assess whether the restraint is no broader than necessary to protect those interests.

Additional reading: Restraint System

The buyer has a lot of responsibility when it comes to proving the restraint is reasonable. The buyer must establish that it has a legitimate interest that is worthy of protection, such as the goodwill of the business.

On a similar theme: Buyer Beware Foreign Currency

To do this, the buyer must show that the restraint is reasonably necessary to protect its legitimate interests. The buyer must also demonstrate that the injunction is necessary to prevent the loss of goodwill.

In other words, the buyer needs to prove that it will suffer significant harm if the restraint is not enforced. This means the buyer must show that the breach will cause irreparable damage to its business.

The court will carefully consider the buyer's evidence to determine if the restraint is indeed reasonable. If the buyer fails to meet this burden, the court may not grant the injunction.

Explore further: 60 Days in Tv Show Payment Terms

In 2021, Mr Wildsmith incorporated a new venture called Will Thirty Three Pty Ltd, which offered software solutions.

This new business venture was allegedly in breach of a post-sale restraint clause in a Securities Purchase Agreement.

The post-sale restraint clause prohibited Mr Wildsmith from competing with DXC Eclipse Pty Ltd, the company that had purchased Sable37, for a period of up to seven years.

The Court at first instance found in favour of Mr Wildsmith, holding that the restraints were unreasonable and unenforceable.

DXC brought proceedings to enforce the post-sale restraint in the NSW Supreme Court in March 2022, claiming that Mr Wildsmith's new business venture violated the post-sale restraints.

Intriguing read: Rakuten Change from Mr Point to Cash Back

The Supreme Court has consistently enforced regulations against post-sale restraints, as seen in the 1926 GE case and General Talking Pictures case, where a bright-line distinction was made between patent licensing and post-sale restrictions.

In the 1940 Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States case, the Supreme Court refused to make distinctions among different patents, striking down the entire licensing program for improperly "regimenting" the industry.

The Court's decision in Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States highlights the importance of adhering to regulations and laws surrounding post-sale restraints, emphasizing that even seemingly minor restrictions can have significant consequences.

Consider reading: Supreme Petrochem

In 1940, the Supreme Court made a significant decision in the Ethyl Gasoline Corp. case. The court struck down the licensing program of Ethyl Gasoline Corporation for improperly "regimenting" the industry.

The company had established a complex licensing program for its patents on tetra-ethyl lead, a motor fuel additive. The program fixed prices for the motor fuel and limited the types of customers to which given licensees could sell the fuel.

For another approach, see: Amazon Pay Fuel Offer

Ethyl emphasized to the court that it licensed the other patents, which covered the manufacture of the fuel and its use in automobile engines. However, the court refused to make any distinctions among the different patents.

The court's decision highlighted the importance of not making distinctions between different types of patents or licensing agreements. It showed that post-sale restraints can be just as problematic as other forms of regulation.

See what others are reading: How to Pay a Credit Card from a Different Bank

The Competition Act is a crucial piece of legislation that regulates business practices and protects consumers. It's a complex law, but let's break it down.

A restraint that's cast too broadly can give rise to a contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act. This means businesses need to be mindful of the language they use in their contracts and agreements.

In the Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States case, the Supreme Court struck down a licensing program due to improper "regimenting" of the industry. This highlights the importance of complying with competition laws.

The Competition and Consumer Act is not just about common law questions of enforceability, it's also about preventing anti-competitive practices. This law is designed to promote competition and protect consumers.

The Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States case shows that the Supreme Court refuses to make distinctions among different patents when it comes to competition laws. This means businesses need to consider the broader implications of their actions.

When drafting a contract, it's essential to include a clear post-sale restraint clause that outlines the terms of the agreement. This clause should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

A good post-sale restraint clause should be reasonable and not overly restrictive, as seen in the example of the software company that prohibited employees from working for a competitor for just two years after leaving the company. This duration is relatively short compared to other industries.

To avoid disputes, it's crucial to define the scope of the restraint, including the specific geographic area and types of activities that are prohibited. For instance, the contract may specify that the employee cannot work for a competitor in the same region or engage in similar business activities.

The contract should also include a clear termination clause that outlines the circumstances under which the post-sale restraint will expire or be terminated. This could be when the employee leaves the company or when the contract expires.

Intriguing read: On the Cash Flow Statement Does Capex Include Ppe