Question

Question 2: What are the rationale cited by the a) majority opinion and b) minority opinion for their respective positions? Which has the better argument in your opinion? RM Energy Systems, Inc. v. PRIMENERGY, LLC, 592 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2010)

Answer 1

This case involved three parties 1.PRM Energy Systems Inc 2.Prime Energy LLC 3.Kobe Steel LTD.

Through its 1999 agreement, PRM licensed Prime Energy to use its gasification technology and allowed Prime Energy to sublicensed in number of countries except for Japan.

A US subsidiary of Kobe Steel (A Japnese based co.) was negotiating with PRM energy to use its technology. But they could not reach an understanding and the agreement could not happen. At the same time, Kobe Steel was negotiating with Prime Energy to start a joint venture in Japan in the year 2003 PRM energy and Kobe Steel reached an agreement and started their project that was a violation of territorial restriction agreement signed between PRM and Prime Energy in the year 1999.

After a lot of dispute between PRM and Prime Energy, PRM filed a case against Kobe Steel for inducement of breach of agreement 1999 and claimed that Prime Energy and Kobe Steel under a conspiracy using their technology for their own use.PRM was unaware of the collaboration between Prime Energy and Kobe Steel granted its license to an unrelated company for use of the license in Japan in the year 2004.

PRM disputes arising due to its agreement of 1999 and Japan was not included for licensing their gasification technology. thus it falls under the broad attribution clause.

PRM had alleged a conspiracy between signatory Primeenery and Koble Steel. The base of the suit is the agreement of 1999 According to PRM the other two companies have worked for hand in hand disputing the agreement. PRM was not directly touching the subject matter of geographical reach,

The court had given fair chance o Kobe Seel and Primeenergy to prove their position