FAD ANDREA, INC. v. Radio Corporation of America

Third Circuit

FAD ANDREA, INC. v. Radio Corporation of America

88 F.2d 474, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 474, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3169

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1937

Docket6123

StatusPublished

This text of 88 F.2d 474 (FAD ANDREA, INC. v. Radio Corporation of America) 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

FAD ANDREA, INC. v. Radio Corporation of America, 88 F.2d 474, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 474, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3169 (3d Cir. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the final analysis, this is a bill pray'ing a mandamus ordering a defendant who owns patents, but has no trust or contractual relation with the plaintiff, to grant licenses thereunder. On hearing, the court below, following its opinion, reported in 14 F.Supp. 226 — to which reference avoids needless repetition' of the facts in the case — -dismissed the bill. Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal.

As stated in its brief, the question involved is whether a patent owner, who is in an alleged dominating and controlling position “with respect to a pool or combination of all of the "pertinent patent rights to all of the large companies of the industry, can be compelled by court decree (under the provisions of section 16 of the Clayton Act [15 U.S.C.A. § 26]) to grant plaintiff a license under the patents of tne pool on the same terms and conditions that such licenses have been granted to others.”

After argument and consideration had, we find ourselves in accord with the trial judge’s reasoning and construction, and as a further opinion would be but an attempt by this court to clothe in different wording what has been already said by the court below, we limit ourselves to affirming the court’s decree on its own opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

In the final analysis, this is a bill pray'ing a mandamus ordering a defendant who owns patents, but has no trust or contractual relation with the plaintiff, to grant licenses thereunder. On hearing, the court below, following its opinion, reported in 14 F.Supp. 226 — to which reference avoids needless repetition' of the facts in the case — -dismissed the bill. Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal.

As stated in its brief, the question involved is whether a patent owner, who is in an alleged dominating and controlling position “with respect to a pool or combination of all of the "pertinent patent rights to all of the large companies of the industry, can be compelled by court decree (under the provisions of section 16 of the Clayton Act [15 U.S.C.A. § 26]) to grant plaintiff a license under the patents of tne pool on the same terms and conditions that such licenses have been granted to others.”

After argument and consideration had, we find ourselves in accord with the trial judge’s reasoning and construction, and as a further opinion would be but an attempt by this court to clothe in different wording what has been already said by the court below, we limit ourselves to affirming the court’s decree on its own opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 F.2d 474, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 474, 1937 U.S. App. LEXIS 3169, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fad-andrea-inc-v-radio-corporation-of-america-ca3-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack