Briggs v. United Shoe MacHinery Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES POR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP NEW YORK. The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of the District Court of the United States in cases arising under the patent laws, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum opinion by
Mr. Justice Van Devanter,
by direction of the court.
Whether this suit between citizens of the same State is one arising under the patent laws is the only question presented by this direct appeal under Jud. Code, § 238. The District Court gave a negative answer to the question and dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction.
The bill shows that its dominant and'ultimate object is to enforce payment of royalties reserved to the plaintiff by a contract whereby he sold to the defendant certain existing and contemplated patents for improvements in shoe-sewing machines, and that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Geneva Furniture Manufacturing Co. v. S. Karpen & Bros.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
- Mowry v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Albright v. TeasSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Luckett v. Delpark, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- Underhill v. . SchenckNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
- Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- United States Ex Rel. Baldwin Co. v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.