Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: us supreme court Year: 1958 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.049 seconds)

Mar 10 1958 (FN)

Northern Pacific R. Co. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-10-1958

..... be likely to result in economic detriment to vendees or lessees, and such uniqueness of the tying product as to suggest comparison with a monopoly by patent. but i venture to predict that the language of the court, taken in conjunction with its approval of the summary disposition of this case, will ..... by adopting the government's argument that this case should be brought within international salt by analogy of the ownership of land to that of a patent, so that the particular tract of land involved in each purchase or lease itself constitutes the relevant market. the record in any event is ..... to the need for clear proof on this issue. in fact, that case considered that, in international salt, the required element of proof was supplied by the patents themselves, which "conferred monopolistic, albeit lawful, market control" over the tying product, 345 u.s. at 345 u. s. 608 , as indeed the court ..... the court placed no reliance on the fact that a patent was involved, nor did it give the slightest intimation that the outcome would have been any different if that had not been the case. if anything ..... . s. 293 , 337 u. s. 305 . the defendant attempts to evade the force of international salt on the ground that the tying product there was patented, while here it is not. but we do not believe this distinction has, or should have, any significance. in arriving at its decision in international salt, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1958 (FN)

Andrew G. Nelson, Inc. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-03-1958

..... commission issued an appropriate cease and desist order prohibiting carriage of unauthorized goods. held: the commission's order is sustained. pp. 355 u. s. 555 -562 (a) there being no patent ambiguity or specialized trade usage involved, the ordinary meaning of the words used in the commodity description is controlling. pp. 355 u. s. 557 -558. (b) the commission's intent ..... the plain meaning of words in a commodity description is controlling in the absence of ambiguity or specialized usage in the trade. neither of the parties believes the description here patently ambiguous, [ footnote 3 ] nor do we consider page 355 u. s. 558 it to be such. moreover, appellant is unwilling to say that the instant description is a term of ..... phraseology exhibits no ambiguity or indefiniteness. in this regard, the commission held, "we agree with the contention of the parties and the examiner's conclusion that there is no such patent ambiguity in the permit as to warrant our going back of it and giving consideration to events prior to its issuance." 63 m.c.c. at 409. absent ..... patent ambiguity, it is well established that the commission will not refer to the underlying grandfather operation. p. saldutti & son, inc. -- interpretation of permit, 63 m.c.c. 593. even if .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1958 (FN)

Staub Vs. City of Baxley

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-13-1958

..... prevent and deprive defendant and others like defendant from organizing members in their organization and exercising rights previously herein set out. the ordinance shows on its face that it is patently a device intended to prevent organization within the city limits in behalf of labor unions. it is a well known fact this day and time that labor unions constitute the ..... occupation and that said ordinance is for the purpose of preventing the organization of labor unions within the city limits of baxley, georgia." "(i) defendant avers that said ordinance is patently void in that the same is a misuse and abuse of the police power of the city of baxley, georgia, in an effort to deprive defendant and others like defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1958 (FN)

Moog Industries, Inc. Vs. Ftc

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jan-14-1958

..... . 77, a reviewing court should not, in any event, entertain it. if the commission has decided the question, its discretionary determination should not be overturned in the absence of a patent abuse of discretion. accordingly, the judgment in no. 77 is affirmed, and the judgment in no. 110 is vacated and the cause remanded to the court of appeals with directions ..... should be considered by a reviewing court only if raised before the commission; and a determination of it by the commission should not be overturned in the absence of a patent abuse of discretion. pp. 355 u. s. 411 -414. 238 f.2d 43 affirmed. 241 f.2d 37, judgment vacated and cause remanded. per curiam. the general question presented by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 15 1958 (FN)

Flemming Vs. Florida Citrus Exchange

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Dec-15-1958

..... . [ footnote 5 ] the persons and firms who are respondents here are all engaged in the growing, packing or marketing of florida or texas oranges. one is also interested in the patented process whereby the red 32 color is applied to the skins of oranges. [ footnote 6 ] the court of appeals set aside the order: ". . . insofar as said order removes the coal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 1958 (FN)

Knapp Vs. Schweitzer

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-30-1958

..... powers were granted were limitations on the federal government, not on the states. the bill of rights that madison sponsored because others anxiously desired that these limitations be made explicit patently was likewise limited to the federal government. if conclusive proof of this were needed, it is afforded by the fact that, when madison came to sponsor the bill of rights .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 09 1958 (FN)

The Colony, Inc. Vs. Commissioner

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-09-1958

..... limitation when they do not, not only would be to read 275(c) more broadly than is justified by the evident reason for its enactment, but also to create a patent incongruity in the page 357 u. s. 37 tax law. see uptegrove lumber co. v. commissioner, supra, 204 f.2d at 573. finally, our construction of 275(c) accords with .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1958 (FN)

Sherman Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : May-19-1958

..... . aside from recalling kalchinian, who was the government's witness, the defense called no witnesses. we reach our conclusion from the undisputed testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. it is patently clear that petitioner was induced by kalchinian. the informer himself testified that, believing petitioner to be undergoing a cure for narcotics addiction, he nonetheless sought to persuade petitioner to obtain .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1958 (SC)

H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-13-1958

Reported in : AIR1959SC443; [1959]Supp1SCR426

gajendragadkar, j.1. this appeal arises from a suit brought by the appellant in the court of the subordinate judge, mysore, as the sole executor of the will alleged to have been executed by one lakshmamma on august 22, 1945, (ex. a). in this suit the appellant claimed a declaration that the said lakshmamma was the owner of the properties mentioned in the schedule attached to the plaint and as such was entitled to dispose of them by a will; and he asked for consequential reliefs purporting to give effect to the bequests made by the said will. the schedule attached to the plaint describes the properties covered by the will under five items. first three items in the schedule refer respectively to 5, 4 and 4 agricultural lands at hampapura village, whereas the fourth item includes 9 lands at arjunahalli village and the last item is a vacant site in hampapura village. according to the plaint, under the will respondent 1 was entitled only to a life interest in items 1 and 2 and that on her death the said items would vest in respondents 2 to 4 and respondent 5 respectively. since respondent 1 was in possession of all the five items, the appellant claimed a decree for possession against respondent 1 in respect of items 3, 4 and 5 and a declaration that respondent 1 was to have only a life interest in items 1 and 2. by his plaint the appellant also claimed to recover rs. 2,100 which had been collected by respondent 1 by way of income from the suit lands and a further prayer was made .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //