|
4492 REVIEW DENIED In the absence of a fiduciary relationship between a seller and buyer of processing equipment, the seller had no duty to inform the buyer that a patent infringement suit had previously been brought by a third party against another purchaser of the same equipment, unless the seller made partial disclosures that were likely to mislead, or the existence of the prior suit was a fact accessible only to the seller, or the seller engaged in active concealment; the seller’s warranty that no patent infringement suit would be brought against the buyer was not a representation but rather a prediction coupled with a promise to take certain action in the event the prediction proved to be incorrect.CitationLINEAR TECHNOLOGY v APPLIED MATERIALS (Undisclosed Suit) 152 CA4 115 [See: CivC 1710; B&PC 17200 etseq; Hahn v Mirda 147 CA4 740, T/AT 3/07; Kasky v Nike 27 C4 939, T/AT 6/02]
|
|
