it of the investigation of its foreign licensing practices for possible antitrust violations was dated June 8, 1967. II Another Government claim is that it was improper for Westinghouse not only to grant patent licenses for anywhere in the world except the United States and Canada, but as well to grant special patent licenses on a case-by-case, customer-by-customer, basis in the United States and Canada. This claim is premised on the view that Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits a patentee from entering into a licensing agreement which does not extend to every location and to every possible sale of the licensed product. The Government’s proposed interpretation of Section 1 of the Act was considered and rejected in United States v. CIBA 436, 60 S.Ct. 618, 84 L.Ed. 852 (1940) (<HOLDING>). The reasoning in CIBA is especially strong as
holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer holding inter alia that a creditor may take a security interest in a licensees liquor license holding invalid license which limited those to whom the licensees could sell finished products which contained the patented article holding that because plaintiff does not have the right to sell assign or otherwise transfer her medical license a medical license does not possess the requisite indicia of transferability holding that licensees use of photograph after license expired infringed licensors copyright