enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Patent misuse - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_misuse

    In United States patent law, patent misuse is a patent holder's use of a patent to restrain trade beyond enforcing the exclusive rights that a lawfully obtained patent provides. [1] If a court finds that a patent holder committed patent misuse, the court may rule that the patent holder has lost the right to enforce the patent.

  3. Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walker_Process_Equipment...

    Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

  4. List of United States Supreme Court patent case law

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States...

    Once a patent has expired, the benefits of the invention are to be enjoyed by the public and may not be extended by trademark. Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corporation of America: 306 U.S. 618: 1939: Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. 314 U.S. 488: 1942: Patent misuse. United States v. Univis Lens Co. 316 U.S. 241: 1942

  5. Simple Innovations Can Have Huge Consequences - AOL

    www.aol.com/2013/04/27/simple-innovations-can...

    A patent was sought in 1961, and finally, on April 27, 1965, Pampers disposable diapers gained their patent, legitimizing (but not necessarily protecting) P&G's huge leap forward for diaper-weary ...

  6. Brulotte v. Thys Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brulotte_v._Thys_Co.

    Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision holding that a contract calling for payment of patent royalties after the expiration of the licensed patent was misuse of the patent right and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, state contract law notwithstanding. [1]

  7. Honeywell, Inc. v. Sperry Rand Corp. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeywell,_Inc._v._Sperry...

    The case was a combination of two separate lawsuits: one brought by Sperry Rand Corporation and its holding company Illinois Scientific Developments against Honeywell Corporation in Washington, D.C., charging Honeywell with patent infringement and demanding royalties, and a countersuit filed in Minneapolis, Minnesota by Honeywell charging Sperry Rand with monopoly and fraud and seeking the ...

  8. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_Radio_Corp._v...

    Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. is the caption of several United States Supreme Court patent–related decisions, the most significant of which is a 1969 patent–antitrust and patent–misuse decision concerning the levying of patent royalties on unpatented products.

  9. Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Salt_Co._v._G.S...

    Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942), is a patent misuse decision of the United States Supreme Court.It was the first case in which the Court expressly labeled as "misuse" the Motion Picture Patent / Carbice tie-in defense to a charge of patent infringement and created the present blanket remedy in infringement cases of unenforceability of the misused patent. [1]