Citation network
Edward Katzinger Co. Vs. Metallic Mfg. Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 06, 1947
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
-
Edward Katzinger Co. v. MetallicSearch
-
Mfg. Co. - 329 U.S. 394 (1947) U.S. Supreme Court Edward Katzinger Co. v. MetallicSearch
-
Mfg. Co., 329 U.S. 394 (1947) Edward Katzinger Co. v. MetallicSearch
-
In these circumstances, the licensee is not estopped to challenge the validity of the patent. Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
Scott Paper Co. v. MarcalusSearch
-
of the license contract, and for infringement damages thereafter. Relying upon our decision in Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
affirmed. 153 F.2d 149. We granted certiorari because of a conflicting decision in Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. MacGregorSearch
-
to enforce price-fixing provisions of a license. We need not consider whether, under the ruling of Bement & Son v. NationalSearch
-
question here is entirely different. Nor need we, as it has been suggested, discuss this Court's opinions in Kinsman v. ParkhurstSearch
-
How. 289, and United States Page 329 U. S. 399 v. HarveySearch
-
which might be imposed by price-fixing agreements stemming from narrow or invalid patents. Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
Electric Co., supra, at 317 U. S. 177 . In Scott Paper Co. v. MarcalueSearch
-
Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-ContinentSearch
-
the consideration is unenforceable because in violation of law, its integrated companion must go with it. See Hazelton v. SheckelsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of Katzinger's patent can no more override congressional policy than can an implied estoppel. See Scott Paper Co. v. MarcalusSearch
-
concurred in by MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, and MR. JUSTICE BURTON, in this case and in MacGregor v. WestinghouseSearch
-
course, it is the unlawful agreement, whether it is executed or not, which violates the antitrust laws. United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
American Tobacco Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
provisions should be considered severable from the rest of the contract, and therefore enforceable. See, e.g., Bement v. NationalSearch
-
Continental Wall Paper Co. v. LouisSearch
-
fixing were inseparable, and that royalties must be denied if the price-fixing provision were illegal. Morton Salt Co. v. SuppigerSearch
-
Loud v. PomonaSearch
-
Williams v. BankSearch
-
See Morton Salt Co. v. SuppigerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Edward Katzinger Co. v. MetallicSearch
-
Sola Electric Co. v. JeffersonSearch
-
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. MacGregorSearch
-
of Bement & Son v. NationalSearch
-
In Scott Paper Co. v. MarcalueSearch
-
See Hazelton v. SheckelsSearch
-
See Scott Paper Co. v. MarcalusSearch
-
MacGregor v. WestinghouseSearch
-
United States v. Socony-VacuumSearch
-
Bement v. NationalSearch
-
Morton Salt Co. v. SuppigerSearch
-
Pope Mfg. Co. v. GormullySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial