Legal Opinion

Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation and Edward E. Simmons, Jr. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Company and Budd Company

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided August 5, 1959No. 12846_1PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff appeals from the finding of misuse of the suit patent.

We agree with the district court that the test body is not an element of the patent which is for a gage per se.

The limitation on use of the gage imposed by appellant, as found by the district court, consists of a flat refusal to sell it to prospective purchasers desirous of using it with strain sensitive apparatus of a type manufactured by Baldwin or its licensees unless the purchase included such apparatus from Baldwin or its licensees. The district court was clearly right in holding: “The enforcement of this policy constituted…

2Cited by37 opinions

  1. Edward Valves, Inc., and Rockwell Manufacturing Company v. Cameron Iron Works, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1961
  2. United States v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H., Director Max Planck, Institut Fur Kohlenforschung, Hercules IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
  3. The Bendix Corporation and Sellew Corporation v. Balax, Inc. And John M. Van VleetCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1973
  4. Corning Glass Works v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.District Court, D. Delaware · 1966
  5. Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1971

32 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