Supreme Court· 6/8/1964
Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
Citations
- 377 U.S. 476
- 84 S. Ct. 1526
- 12 L. Ed. 2d 457
- 1964 U.S. LEXIS 2381
- 141 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 681
- 1964 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,132
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[T]he present statutory rule is that only ‘damages’ may be recovered.”
- adopting intent rule for patent infringement cases
- patent “dam- ages” tied to market valuation
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brennan, White, Black, Douglas, Clark
Read full opinion on CourtListenerOther cases named Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.
7 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court· 1961-04-17· cited 381×
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court· 1960-02-29· cited 23×
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court· 1963-04-01· cited 2×
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court· 1961-04-17· cited 1×
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.D. Massachusetts· 1965-03-11
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court· 1960-10-10
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court· 1963-10-14
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.