The basis for the doctrine is the premise that a licensee should not be able to enjoy the benefit of an agreement and at the same time attack the validity of the intellectual property that forms the basis of the agreement.
In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Lear v. Adkins,[3] held the doctrine inconsistent with a federal policy that the invalidity of specious patents should be unmasked in order to permit full and free competition in technology ideas that belong in the public domain.
The strong public interest in invalidating patents, allowing public access to non-patentworthy technology, justified permitting licensees to challenge patents.
[4] In the United States, the doctrine remains valid in trademark law, where the public policy concerns differ from the patent context.
This article relating to law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub.