Citation network
Lear, Inc. Vs. Adkins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 16, 1969
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 653 (1969) U.S. Supreme Court Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSearch
-
U.S. 653 (1969) Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSearch
-
involving the negotiation of a license after a patent has issued. The holding of Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. HazeltineSearch
-
royalties for the use of an idea which was, in reality, a part of the public domain. Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. HazeltineSearch
-
the strong federal policy favoring free competition in ideas which do not merit patent protection. Sears, Roebuck v. StiffelSearch
-
Compco Corp. v. Day-BriteSearch
-
to a patent owner constituted a limited exception to the general federal policy favoring free competition. Kinsman v. ParkhurstSearch
-
decision often cited as supporting the estoppel doctrine points clearly in the opposite direction. St. Paul Plow Works v. StarlingSearch
-
Pope Manufacturing Co. v. GormullySearch
-
this Court invoked an estoppel in 1905 without citing or considering Pope's powerful argument, United States v. HarveySearch
-
the doctrine was not to be applied again in this Court until it was revived in Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. HazeltineSearch
-
far more compelling than those presented in the typical licensing arrangement. Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Co. v. FormicaSearch
-
Faulks v. KampSearch
-
licensor's claims were not novel at all, and thus successfully defend an action for royalties. Casco Products Corp. v. SinkoSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Tool & Manufacturing Co., 116 F.2d 119. In Scott Paper Co. v. MarcalusSearch
-
yet another doctrine which was profoundly antithetic to the principles underlying estoppel. In Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
provisions of their contract, once a third party proves that the patent is invalid. See, e.g., Drackett Chemical Co. v. ChamberlainSearch
-
in general circulation be dedicated to the common good unless they are protected by a valid patent. Sears, Roebuck v. StiffelSearch
-
royalties despite his licensee's attempts to show that the patent is invalid. Compare Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. FoodSearch
-
the negotiation of a license after a patent has issued. We are satisfied that Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. HazeltineSearch
-
intended to hold that Adkins' ideas satisfied the demanding standard of invention explicated in our decision in Graham v. JohnSearch
-
the agreement, and that thereafter the licensee may challenge the validity of the patent. ( See, e.g., Armstrong Co. v. ShellSearch
-
enforced patent licenses without a thorough consideration of the estoppel issues that were presented. In Eureka Co. v. BaileySearch
-
showing was required than was considered necessary in an ordinary infringement action. In Dale Tile Manufacturing Co. v. HyattSearch
-
Edward Katzinger Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
MacGregor v. WestinghouseSearch
-
The Case of Private Good Faith v. PublicSearch
-
I see it, directly Page 395 U. S. 677 in conflict with what this Court held to be the law in Sears, Roebuck v. StiffelSearch
-
Co., 376 U. S. 225 (1964), and Compco Corp. v. Day-BriteSearch
-
decision on questions unnecessary to its disposition of the case. See, e.g., Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. OklahomaSearch
-
practice and refuse to issue pronouncements on questions not urged or decided in the state courts. In McGoldrick v. CompagnieSearch
-
Id. at 309 U. S. 434 . Wilson v. CookSearch
-
and arose under the same implied constitutional immunity argument. Id. at 327 U. S. 483 . Cf. Dewey v. DesSearch
-
The Court relied on McGoldrick and a long line of prior cases, including New York ex rel. Cohn v. GravesSearch
-
Radio Station WOW v. JohnsonSearch
-
CIO v. McAdorySearch
-
the state court, will probably or even certainly arise during further proceedings held in that court. See, e.g., NAACP v. AlabamaSearch
-
Hudson Distributors, Inc. v. EliSearch
-
See Flournoy v. WienerSearch
-
extent, they seem indistinguishable from pre-1960 royalties, at least for purposes of federal patent law. Cf. Brulotte v. ThysSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSearch
-
of Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. HazeltineSearch
-
Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. HazeltineSearch
-
Sears, Roebuck v. StiffelSearch
-
United States v. HarveySearch
-
Westinghouse Electric Manufacturing Co. v. FormicaSearch
-
Casco Products Corp. v. SinkoSearch
-
In Scott Paper Co. v. MarcalusSearch
-
In Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial