Legal Opinion

Carstedt v. Grindeland

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 3, 1981No. 50669PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TODD, Justice.

Howard Carstedt, a printing press mechanic, developed an apparatus known as a decurling bar which effectively increased the productivity of printing presses. Gordon Grindeland was engaged in the business of marketing a device he had developed for the printing industry. On hearing of Car-stedt’s device, Grindeland sought out Car-stedt. Carstedt filed a patent application and the parties entered into a licensing agreement. Grindeland began to market the decurler successfully and paid royalties to Carstedt. Thereafter, he was notified of a claimed prior patent and ceased paying…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
  2. Peterson v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  3. Beattie v. Product Design & Engineering, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
  4. Roy Matson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. SpringerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
  2. Carstedt v. GrindelandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  3. Kilton v. RICHARD G. NADLER & ASSOCIATESCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
  4. Carstedt v. GrindelandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
  5. O'Kronglis v. BrobergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API