Bettis Rubber Co. v. Kleaver
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
VALLÉE, J.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment declaring that plaintiff is not required to pay royalties on patented devices after the expiration of the patents.
On January 15, 1940, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, called licensee, and defendant, called licensor, entered into a contract in writing whereby licensor granted to licensee the sole and exclusive license “to manufacture, use and sell in the United States of America and all foreign countries, the invention or inventions disclosed in those certain Letters Patent Nos. 1,573,031, 1,863,740, 2,045,629, 2,163,932, 2,166,116, 2,166,937,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Hazeltine Research, IncSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Triplett v. LowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Overton v. Vita-Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. ZieglerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1945
- Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pac. R.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Crestview Cemetery Ass'n v. DiedenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
- Luis v. Orcutt Town Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1962
- Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1967
- Ar-Tik Systems, Inc. v. Dairy Queen, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1962
- Technograph Printed Circuits, Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1967
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.