BRULOTTE v. THYS CO., 376 U.S. 905 (1964)
Syllabus
U.S. Supreme Court
BRULOTTE v. THYS CO. , 376 U.S. 905 (1964)376 U.S. 905
Walter C. BRULOTTE et al.,
petitioners,
v.
THYS COMPANY.
No. 707.
Supreme Court of the United States
February 17, 1964
Edward S. Irons, for petitioners.
George W. Wilkins, for respondent.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Whether it is a misuse to include
in a license agreement a provision which perpetuates the monopoly
of a licensed patent by a requirement that royalties be paid for
the use of the invention after the patent has expired and the
invention had been dedicated to the public.
'2. Whether it is a misuse or an
antitrust violation to include in a license agreement a provision
which extends the monopoly of a patent to unpatented subject matter
by a provision which requires the payment of post-expiration
royalties.'
The case is placed on the summary calendar.[ Brulotte v. Thys
Co. 376 U.S. 905
(1964) ]
Opinions
v.
THYS COMPANY.
No. 707. Supreme Court of the United States February 17, 1964 Edward S. Irons, for petitioners. George W. Wilkins, for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
U.S. Supreme Court
BRULOTTE v. THYS CO. , 376 U.S. 905 (1964) 376 U.S. 905 Walter C. BRULOTTE et al., petitioners,v.
THYS COMPANY.
No. 707. Supreme Court of the United States February 17, 1964 Edward S. Irons, for petitioners. George W. Wilkins, for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Whether it is a misuse to include
in a license agreement a provision which perpetuates the monopoly
of a licensed patent by a requirement that royalties be paid for
the use of the invention after the patent has expired and the
invention had been dedicated to the public.
'2. Whether it is a misuse or an
antitrust violation to include in a license agreement a provision
which extends the monopoly of a patent to unpatented subject matter
by a provision which requires the payment of post-expiration
royalties.'
The case is placed on the summary calendar.[ Brulotte v. Thys
Co. 376 U.S.
905 (1964) ]
Search This Case
