Citation network
Carbice Corp. Vs. Patents Development Corp.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 09, 1931
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
-
Carbice Corp. v. PatentsSearch
-
Development Corp. - 283 U.S. 27 (1931) U.S. Supreme Court Carbice Corp. v. PatentsSearch
-
Development Corp., 283 U.S. 27 (1931) Carbice Corporation of America v. AmericanSearch
-
the owner can, of course, prohibit entirely the manufacture, sale, or use of such packages, Continental Paper Bag Co. v. EasternSearch
-
Or it can grant licenses upon terms consistent with the limited scope of the patent monopoly, United States v. GeneralSearch
-
Motion Picture Patents Co. v. UniversalSearch
-
Film Mfg. Co., 243 U. S. 502 , 243 U. S. 515 . Compare United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. GeneralSearch
-
is comparable to the attempt of a patentee to fix the price at which the patented article may be resold. Bauer & Cie. v. O'DonnellSearch
-
Straus v. VictorSearch
-
Boston Store v. AmericanSearch
-
Graphophone Co., 246 U. S. 8 . Compare Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. StrausSearch
-
is one of the necessary elements of the patented product. And, to distinguish the case at bar from Morgan Envelope Co. v. AlbanySearch
-
Root v. RailwaySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
for restraining commerce which was condemned, under the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, in Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
The case at bar is wholly unlike Leeds & Catlin v. VictorSearch
-
they sold did not constitute a repair of the machine, and hence was not within the license implied on sale. Heyer v. DuplicatorSearch
-
Sarason v. FrenaySearch
-
Huntoon Co. v. KolynosSearch
-
See Ensten v. SimonSearch
-
the exclusive right to license use of the invention cannot be so exercised. Missouri ex rel. Baltimore & O. Tel. Co. v. BellSearch
-
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. DelawareSearch
-
of a United States patent exempt the patented product from limitations imposed by state police statutes. Patterson v. KentuckySearch
-
John Woods & Sons v. CarlSearch
-
Ozan Lumber Co. v. UnionSearch
-
County National Bank, 207 U. S. 251 . Compare Webber v. VirginiaSearch
-
See note 1 supra. Nor can a patent be made the basis of an unconscionable contract. Pope Mfg. Co. v. GermullySearch
-
See United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Lord v. RadioSearch
-
F.2d 962, aff'd, February 13, 1931, 47 F.2d 606. Compare, as to trade secrets, Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. ParkSearch
-
are inherent in other limited monopolies. Thus, a trademark may not be used as a means of misrepresentation. Worden v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Mulhens & Kropff, Inc. v. FerdSearch
-
Leather Cloth Co., Ltd. v. AmericanSearch
-
De G. J. & S. 137, aff'd, 11 H.L.C. 523. Nor a tradename as a means of deception. Memphis Keeley Institute v. KeeleySearch
-
Royal Baking Powder Co. v. FederalSearch
-
Federal Trade Commission v. BradleySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Carbice Corp. v. PatentsSearch
-
Carbice Corporation of America v. AmericanSearch
-
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. EasternSearch
-
Compare United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
Bauer & Cie. v. O'DonnellSearch
-
Compare Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. StrausSearch
-
Morgan Envelope Co. v. AlbanySearch
-
Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Leeds & Catlin v. VictorSearch
-
Heyer v. DuplicatorSearch
-
Baltimore & O. Tel. Co. v. BellSearch
-
Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. DelawareSearch
-
Patterson v. KentuckySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial