Trenton Industries v. A. E. Peterson
Manufacturing Co. case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
165 F.Supp. 523
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff, inventor of a
patented improvement in infant high chairs, filed suit against
defendant for patent infringement and to recover compensation for
defendant's use of the patented device prior to issuance of the
patent.
FACTS: Plaintiff, assignee corporation of patented improvement to infant high chairs, sued defendant corporation for patent infringement and unjust enrichment for damages resulting from defendant's use of plaintiff's idea. Plaintiff disclosed the invention to defendant prior to the patent's issuance, proposing a license agreement under which defendant would manufacture chairs and pay plaintiff royalties.
FACTS: Plaintiff, assignee corporation of patented improvement to infant high chairs, sued defendant corporation for patent infringement and unjust enrichment for damages resulting from defendant's use of plaintiff's idea. Plaintiff disclosed the invention to defendant prior to the patent's issuance, proposing a license agreement under which defendant would manufacture chairs and pay plaintiff royalties.
ANALYSIS:
The court found for defendant on count
one. Because it did not contain the required element of novelty, the
patent was invalid. However, the court found for plaintiff on count
two. Defendant was exposed to plaintiff's invention for the purpose
of agreement negotiations, and then marketed a high chair containing
features from plaintiff's invention. Defendant was unjustly enriched,
and plaintiff was entitled to damages from the date of invention
disclosure until issuance of the patent.
CONCLUSION: The court found for defendant on the first count, because it found the patent invalid, but for plaintiff on the second count, because defendant was unjustly enriched by using plaintiff's idea, disclosed to defendant in hopes of reaching a license agreement.
CONCLUSION: The court found for defendant on the first count, because it found the patent invalid, but for plaintiff on the second count, because defendant was unjustly enriched by using plaintiff's idea, disclosed to defendant in hopes of reaching a license agreement.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment