Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-02-1936
Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co. - 297 U.S. 387 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387 (1936) Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co. No. 356 Argued January 16, 1936 Decided March 2, 1936 297 U.S. 387 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 4900 R.S. does not mean that a patentee who has not made the patented article may not recover for infringements committed before he gave actual notice of his patent to the infringer. Pp. 297 U. S. 392 , 297 U. S. 397 . 77 F.2d 159 reversed. Certiorari, 296 U.S. 560, to review a decree reducing the recovery on an accounting for infringement of a patent. See also 25 F. 2d 236. Page 297 U. S. 391 MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1922, respondent equipment company sued the petitioner for infringing certain patents. April 25, 1923, petitioner appliance company, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-27-1936
International Business Machines Corp. v. United States - 298 U.S. 131 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131 (1936) International Business Machines Corp. v. United States No. 758 Argued April 8, 1936 Decided April 27, 1936 298 U.S. 131 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Section 3 of the Clayton Act declares it unlawful for any person engaged in commerce to lease machinery "whether patented or unpatented" on the condition that the lessee shall not use supplies or other commodities of the lessor's competitor, where the effect of the condition "may be" to lessen competition substantially or tend to create a monopoly. Held: 1. The prohibition is violated by a condition requiring a lessee to operate the leased machine only with supplies from the lessor, since this, in effect, precludes the use of supplies of a competitor. P. 298 U. S. 134 . 2. While the se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-07-1936
British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Board of Equalization - 299 U.S. 159 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Board of Equalization, 299 U.S. 159 (1936) British-American Oil Producing Co. v. Board of Equalization of Montana No. 37 Argued November 11, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 159 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Syllabus 1. The Blackfeet Indian Reservation, as existing in recent years, was created by legislation, and not by Executive Order. P. 299 U. S. 162 . The Reservation rests upon agreements or conventions which were ratified and given effect by Acts of Congress, c. 213, 25 Stat. 113; c. 398, 29 Stat. 321, 353, superseding earlier, temporary Executive Orders. 2. The proviso to 3 of the Act of February 28, 1891, authorizing the leasing for mining purposes of lands occupied by Indians "who have bought and paid for the same" is not confined to lands acquired by Indians through the payment of a consideration in money...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-30-1936
Triplett v. Lowell - 297 U.S. 638 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Triplett v. Lowell, 297 U.S. 638 (1936) Triplett v. Lowell No. 388 Argued March 4, 5, 1936 Decided March 30, 1936 * 297 U.S. 638 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus 1. Neither the disclaimer statute, R.S. 4917, 4922, nor the rules of the common law applicable to successive litigations concerning the same subject matter preclude relitigation of the validity of a patent claim previously held invalid in a suit against a different defendant. P. 297 U. S. 642 . 2. The court whose jurisdiction is invoked by a suit for infringement of a patent must determine for itself the validity of the claims asserted, notwithstanding a prior adjudication of invalidity of some of them, unless those issues have become res judicata by reason of the fact that both suits are between the same parties or their privies. Only if it holds that the claims are invalid may it be called upon to apply th...
Tag this Judgment!