unconditional, in that Defendants were expressly informed that their purchase of components from Intel did not grant them a license to infringe LGE’s patents by combining those components with other non-Intel parts. LGE is correct that the patent exhaustion doctrine requires an unconditional sale. B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Lab., 124 F.3d 1419, 1426 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“[It is] an unconditional sale of a patented device [or its essential components that] exhausts the patentee’s right to control the purchaser’s use of the device thereafter.”). Further, LGE is correct that it is entitled to impose conditions on the sale of its patented products or the essential components of its patented products, if it chooses. Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, 706-08 (Fed.Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Nor is there any support in the case law for
holding in the analogous context of choiceoflaw in relation to the sale of personal property that compensation for arranging the sale is assessed apart from underlying sale holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument holding that the patent exhaustion doctrine is only applicable if there is an unconditional sale and that private parties retain the freedom to contract concerning conditions of sale holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b holding that the new jersey real estate licensing act is applicable to the sale of a company through a stock sale