Legal Opinion

Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 17, 1947No. 70 and 71PublishedCited by 94 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Black

The question here is whether the defendant, in a suit to recover royalties only under a terminated patent license agreement containing price-fixing provisions, can challenge the validity of the patent despite a covenant in the license contract that he would not do so.

The petitioner, Edward Katzinger Company, and the respondent, Chicago Metallic Mfg. Company, make and sell tin baking pans. The undenied testimony was that Metallic sold its pans over a large part of the United States, probably in every state in the country. Katzinger became owner of Jackson patent No. 2,077,757 on a certain type…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. American Tobacco Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  4. Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
  5. Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by94 opinions

  1. United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Hazeltine Research, IncSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  5. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2015

89 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API