Healy v. Sea Gull Specialty Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES -FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA. The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the District Court in a case involving infringement of patent, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is a bill in equity brought by the appellants, alleging that Healy is the owner of patents for improvements in boxes and machines for making boxes, and that the Healy Box Corporation is the grantee of the exclusive right to make and use the machines and to make, use and sell the boxes containing the patented improvements. The bill next alleges that the defendant is infringing the patents and will continue to do so unless restrained. Then, anticipating a defence, it sets forth a license to the defendant, a breach of its conditions and a termination of the same. It adds that the license…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- The Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Hartell v. TilghmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- White v. RankinSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
3Cited by79 opinions
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- United States v. MottazSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Independent School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995
- Lamar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.