Patents confer upon the owner a right to exclude others, including the government
Michel 2000 [Paul Redmond Michel, former United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a former Chief Judge of that court, “SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY LABORATORY CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Defendants-Cross Appellants.”, Nos. 98-1377, 99-1103, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, March 2, 2000, //zrubin]
Alternatively, Samsung contends that a patent is actually more closely analogous to a franchise than a license. Whereas a license is a promise by the government not to interfere, see Toulabi v. United States, 875 F.2d 122, 125-26 (7th Cir.1989), a franchise is a right that belongs to the government when conferred upon a citizen and that inheres in the sovereign power, see Borre v. United States, 940 F.2d 215, 220 (7th Cir.1991). The Seventh Circuit has held that fraud in procuring a franchise is subject to the mail fraud statute. See Borre, 940 F.2d at 220. According to Samsung, a patent, like a franchise, enables its owner to exclude others, including the government.