Carstedt v. Grindeland
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Davis v. Re-Trac Manufacturing CorporationSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1967
- Peterson v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Beattie v. Product Design & Engineering, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1972
- Roy Matson Truck Lines, Inc. v. Michelin Tire Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
3Cited by5 opinions
- Park-Lake Car Wash, Inc. v. SpringerCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1986
- Carstedt v. GrindelandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Kilton v. RICHARD G. NADLER & ASSOCIATESCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
- Carstedt v. GrindelandCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1985
- O'Kronglis v. BrobergCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990