Legal Opinion · Dissent

Quick Point Pencil Company, a Missouri Corporation v. Jane Aronson (Formerly Known as Jane Leopoldi)

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided January 4, 1978No. 77-1142Published

1DissentLarson, Senior District Judge

I respectfully dissent.

The majority appears to acknowledge that the contract here was not conditioned on the issuance of a patent.1 Yet it attributes considerable importance to the fact that a patent application was “involved” and appears to hold that a private agreement which “involves” an abandoned patent application may not be enforced as a matter of federal policy.2 Because that holding appears to be based on a characterization of the issues with which I disagree, I deem it necessary to discuss in some detail my understanding of the legal principles governing this case.

First, the nature…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Lear, Inc. v. AdkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Brulotte v. Thys Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  5. Painton & Company, Ltd., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Bourns, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1971

8 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