Altvater v. Freeman
Citations
- 319 U.S. 359
- 63 S. Ct. 1115
- 87 L. Ed. 1450
- 1943 U.S. LEXIS 1252
- 57 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 285
About this case
Altvater v. Freeman
Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that, although a licensee had maintained payments of royalties, a Declaratory Judgment Act claim of invalidity of the licensed patent still presented a justiciable case or controversy.
See also
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altvater_v._Freeman&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: See also")
_MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. _, 549 U.S. 118 (2007)
Further reading
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altvater_v._Freeman&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Further reading")
- Maines, Ruanne Neighbour (1949). "Declaratory Judgments: Patent Litigation: Justiciable Controversy". California Law Review. 37 (3). California Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 3: 506–510. doi :10.2307/3477809 . JSTOR 3477809 .
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altvater_v._Freeman&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: External links")
- Works related to Altvater v. Freeman at Wikisource
- Text of Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altvater_v._Freeman&oldid=1351335583 "
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case”
- “To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case.”
- “To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case.”
- “To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case.”
- 'To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case/ but a counterclaim for invalidity is not mooted where counterclaim deals with additional patent claims and devices not involved in the complaint and with license issues.
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Douglas, Frankfurter, Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
176 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Supreme Court· 2007-01-09· cited 1,786×
- United Public Workers of America v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1947-02-10· cited 1,457×
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.Supreme Court· 2013-01-09· cited 1,353×
- Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. RoperSupreme Court· 1980-05-12· cited 1,115×
- Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton International, Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-05-17· cited 519×
- Eccles v. Peoples Bank of Lakewood VillageSupreme Court· 1948-03-15· cited 423×
- Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.Federal Circuit· 2008-08-15· cited 198×
- United States v. WashingtonNinth Circuit· 1985-04-29· cited 176×
- SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2007-03-26· cited 169×
- Sandt Technology, Ltd. v. Resco Metal and Plastics Corporation (Also Known as Resco Metal Products Corp.) and Seven Ocean Enterprises, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2001-10-15· cited 129×
- Fort James Corporation v. Solo Cup CompanyFederal Circuit· 2005-06-22· cited 123×
- Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2007-07-20· cited 122×
- Jervis B. Webb Company v. Southern Systems, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1984-08-16· cited 118×
- LaTouraine Coffee Co. v. Lorraine Coffee Co.Second Circuit· 1946-08-07· cited 117×
- Pandrol Usa, Lp and Pandrol Limited v. Airboss Railway Products, Inc., Airboss of America Corp., Robert M. Magnuson, and Jose R. MediavillaFederal Circuit· 2003-02-21· cited 107×
- SUREFOOT LC v. Sure Foot Corp.Tenth Circuit· 2008-07-08· cited 101×
- Brown & Root, Inc. v. Big Rock CorporationFifth Circuit· 1967-09-12· cited 95×
- Harries v. Air King Products Co., IncSecond Circuit· 1950-06-20· cited 88×
- Fonar Corporation and Dr. Raymond Damadian, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Johnson & Johnson and Technicare Corporation, Appellees/cross-AppellantsFederal Circuit· 1987-06-16· cited 84×
- The A. S. Abell Company v. John W. Chell, and Robert F. Neugebauer, IntervenorFourth Circuit· 1969-06-10· cited 79×
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court· 1936-02-17· cited 3,147×
- Aetna Life Insurance v. HaworthSupreme Court· 1937-03-01· cited 3,033×
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.Supreme Court· 1941-02-03· cited 2,348×
- Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.Supreme Court· 1942-12-07· cited 386×
- Electrical Fittings Corp. v. ThomasSupreme Court· 1939-05-22· cited 277×
- United States v. Alaska Steamship Co.Supreme Court· 1920-05-17· cited 269×
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1884-03-17· cited 121×
- Cover v. SchwartzSecond Circuit· 1942-12-17· cited 117×
- United States v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1935-05-20· cited 102×
- Union Pacific Railroad v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court· 1918-12-09· cited 101×
- United States v. Harvey Steel Co.Supreme Court· 1905-01-16· cited 82×
- Gaar, Scott & Co. v. ShannonSupreme Court· 1912-02-19· cited 64×
- Leach v. Ross Heater & Mfg. Co.Second Circuit· 1939-04-24· cited 59×
- Freeman v. AltvaterEighth Circuit· 1933-07-24· cited 31×
- Western Supplies Co. v. FreemanSixth Circuit· 1940-02-16· cited 20×
- United States v. LawsonSupreme Court· 1880-02-18· cited 17×
- Premier MacHine Co. v. FreemanFirst Circuit· 1936-06-03· cited 16×
- Freeman v. AltvaterEighth Circuit· 1942-07-15· cited 10×
- Freeman v. AltvaterEighth Circuit· 1942-09-28· cited 5×
- Altvater v. FreemanEighth Circuit· 1943-04-15· cited 1×
Other cases named Altvater v. Freeman
3 other CourtListener records share this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.