Citation network
Triplett Vs. Lowell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 30, 1936
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. 638 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Triplett v. LowellSearch
-
U.S. 638 (1936) Triplett v. LowellSearch
-
a radio receiving apparatus. Each claim was held invalid by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Radio Corp. v. DubilierSearch
-
precisely to the specifications without changing their substance or conceding their invalidity, see Carnegie Steel Co. v. CambriaSearch
-
so as to render both the old and the new claims invalid, see Altoona Public Theaters, Inc. v. AmericanSearch
-
to render a like decree, it is not res adjudicata, and may not be pleaded as a defense. See Mast, Foos & Co. v. StoverSearch
-
patent was destroyed if any claim Page 297 U. S. 643 were held invalid. See Altoona Public Theaters, Inc. v. AmericanSearch
-
Ensten v. SimonSearch
-
Hailes v. AlbanySearch
-
Moody v. FiskeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
when the entire patent is held invalid, since, in that case, there would be nothing to disclaim. See Winans v. NewSearch
-
Court of Appeals in an earlier suit brought by the same plaintiff against another defendant. Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSearch
-
Diamond Rubber Co. v. ConsolidatedSearch
-
Fitch Co. v. BaldwinSearch
-
United States v. AmericanSearch
-
disclaimer statute is remedial, and intended for the protection of both the patentee and the public. See O'Reilly v. MorseSearch
-
by a tardy disclaimer or otherwise, and a second suit is brought to restrain infringement of other claims, see Ensten v. SimonSearch
-
plaintiff seeks to secure without disclaimer the benefits of a favorable decision on other claims. See R. Hoe & Co. v. GossSearch
-
Higgin Mfg. Co. v. WatsonSearch
-
Liquid Carbonic Co. v. GilchristSearch
-
Herman v. YoungstownSearch
-
to render both the old and the new claims invalid by virtue of the reissue statute. See Altoona Public Theaters, Inc. v. AmericanSearch
-
United States v. MayerSearch
-
Chicago, B.& Q. Ry. Co. v. WilliamsSearch
-
United States v. HallSearch
-
and a different answer under another, neither of which is stated to be the basis of the questions certified. See White v. JohnsonSearch
-
Hallowell v. UnitedSearch
-
are not required to answer academic questions, or questions which may not arise in the pending controversy. See White v. JohnsonSearch
-
where, as here, it fails to disclose whether all the relevant facts and circumstances have been certified. Jewell v. KnightSearch
-
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. InterstateSearch
-
United States v. CitySearch
-
Together with No. 590, Mantle Lamp Co. v. AluminumSearch
-
a patent which had been upheld by one court of appeals after being held invalid by another. Railroad Supply Co. v. ElyriaSearch
-
Meccano, Ltd. v. JohnSearch
-
New York Scaffolding Co. v. ChainSearch
-
Corona Cord Tire Co. v. DovanSearch
-
Sarance Automatic Mach. Corp. v. WireboundsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Triplett v. LowellSearch
-
the Third Circuit, Radio Corp. v. DubilierSearch
-
Carnegie Steel Co. v. CambriaSearch
-
Altoona Public Theaters, Inc. v. AmericanSearch
-
See Mast, Foos & Co. v. StoverSearch
-
See Altoona Public Theaters, Inc. v. AmericanSearch
-
See Winans v. NewSearch
-
Expanded Metal Co. v. BradfordSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial