Home/Third Circuit/Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation and Edward E. Simmons, Jr. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Company and Budd Company

Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation and Edward E. Simmons, Jr. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Company and Budd Company

268 F.2d 395
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedAugust 5, 1959
Docket12846_1
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 268 F.2d 395 (Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation and Edward E. Simmons, Jr. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Company and Budd Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation and Edward E. Simmons, Jr. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Company and Budd Company, 268 F.2d 395 (3d Cir. 1959).

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the finding of misuse of the suit patent.

We agree with the district court that the test body is not an element of the patent which is for a gage per se.

The limitation on use of the gage imposed by appellant, as found by the district court, consists of a flat refusal to sell it to prospective purchasers desirous of using it with strain sensitive apparatus of a type manufactured by Baldwin or its licensees unless the purchase included such apparatus from Baldwin or its licensees. The district court was clearly right in holding: “The enforcement of this policy constituted an illegal expansion of the monopoly conferred by the Simmons patent on the gage per se beyond that contemplated by the patent grant. This misuse is a bar to the enforcement of the patent against the defendants regardless of whether plaintiffs’ activities constituted a violation of the anti-trust laws.”

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed upon the opinion and particularly the supplemental opinion of Judge Steel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Australia Vision Services Pty. Ltd. v. Dioptics Medical Products, Inc.
29 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (C.D. California, 1998)
Ziggity Systems, Inc. v. Val Watering Systems
769 F. Supp. 752 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1990)
RE Phelon Co., Inc. v. Wabash, Inc.
640 F. Supp. 1383 (N.D. Indiana, 1986)
Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co.
579 F. Supp. 353 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1983)
United States v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H., Director Max Planck, Institut Fur Kohlenforschung, Hercules Incorporated
670 F.2d 1122 (D.C. Circuit, 1981)
Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc.
481 F. Supp. 573 (D. New Jersey, 1979)
Norton Company, Appellant-Cross v. Carborundum Company, Appellee-Cross
530 F.2d 435 (First Circuit, 1976)
Tokyo Shibaura Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
404 F. Supp. 547 (D. Delaware, 1975)
American Industrial Fastener Corp. v. Flushing Enterprises, Inc.
362 F. Supp. 32 (N.D. Ohio, 1973)
The Triax Company v. Hartman Metal Fabricators, Inc.
479 F.2d 951 (Second Circuit, 1973)
The Bendix Corporation and Sellew Corporation v. Balax, Inc. And John M. Van Vleet
471 F.2d 149 (Seventh Circuit, 1973)
Dart Industries, Inc. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
348 F. Supp. 1338 (N.D. Illinois, 1972)
Blohm & Voss AG v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc.
346 F. Supp. 1116 (D. Maryland, 1972)
Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas Company
456 F.2d 592 (Third Circuit, 1972)
Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company
339 F. Supp. 1036 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1972)
Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The United States
449 F.2d 1374 (Court of Claims, 1971)
Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc.
328 F. Supp. 1132 (W.D. Texas, 1971)
Acme Highway Products Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The D. S. Brown Company and Delmont D. Brown, Cross-Appellants
431 F.2d 1074 (Sixth Circuit, 1970)
SCM Corporation v. Radio Corporation of America
318 F. Supp. 433 (S.D. New York, 1970)
Monsanto Company v. Dawson Chemical Company
312 F. Supp. 452 (S.D. Texas, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 F.2d 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baldwin-lima-hamilton-corporation-and-edward-e-simmons-jr-v-tatnall-ca3-1959.