Supreme Court· 2/19/1923
Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine Works
Citations
- 261 U.S. 24
- 43 S. Ct. 254
- 67 L. Ed. 516
- 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2526
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- expressing concern when right to sue for infringement is “severed” from an interest in the patent title
- “All that the Government grants and protects is the power to exclude others from making, using or vending dining the grant.”
- interest in patent not a separable interest which can be assigned; instrument attempting to transfer the statutory cause of action in this manner is ineffective
- the right to sue “carried no part of the title to the patent or interest in it”
- “[T]he injury inflicted by an act of infringement falls upon the individual who owns the monopoly at the date of the infringement.”
- “[T]he injury inflicted by an act of infringement falls upon the individual who owns the monopoly at the date of the infringement.” (quotation marks omitted)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Taft
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
182 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court· 1969-05-19· cited 2,097×
- Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co.Federal Circuit· 1995-06-15· cited 449×
- United States v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court· 1926-11-23· cited 310×
- Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court· 1926-01-11· cited 308×
- Ethicon, Inc. And Inbae Yoon, M.D. v. United States Surgical Corporation and Young Jae ChoiFederal Circuit· 1998-04-01· cited 277×
- Commil United States, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.Supreme Court· 2015-05-26· cited 277×
- Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1928-01-03· cited 243×
- Hartford-Empire Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1945-01-08· cited 231×
- Mas-Hamilton Group v. Lagard, Inc., (Now Known as Masco Corporation) and Hi-Shear Technology CorporationFederal Circuit· 1998-09-10· cited 221×
- Vaupel Textilmaschinen Kg and Vaupel North America v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A. And American Trim Products, Inc., Defendants/cross-AppellantsFederal Circuit· 1991-09-13· cited 212×
- Nancey Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 2005-03-25· cited 158×
- United States v. Line Material Co.Supreme Court· 1948-04-05· cited 157×
- Arachnid, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Merit Industries, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1991-11-07· cited 128×
- Morrow Ex Rel. General Unsecured Creditors' Liquidating Trust of at Home Corp. v. Microsoft Corp.Federal Circuit· 2007-09-19· cited 124×
- Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co.Federal Circuit· 2000-08-17· cited 124×
- Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLCSupreme Court· 2018-04-24· cited 102×
- Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2008-06-02· cited 100×
- Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Nanya Technology CorporationFederal Circuit· 2019-05-30· cited 98×
- Propat International Corp. v. RPost, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2007-01-04· cited 87×
- Western Electric Co. v. Pacent Reproducer CorporationSecond Circuit· 1930-05-05· cited 87×
Cites
18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court· 1891-02-02· cited 598×
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court· 1908-06-01· cited 504×
- Bloomer v. McQuewanSupreme Court· 1853-03-18· cited 148×
- Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co.Supreme Court· 1902-05-05· cited 109×
- Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co.Sixth Circuit· 1896-10-12· cited 106×
- Albright v. TeasSupreme Court· 1883-01-22· cited 64×
- Fuller v. BergerSeventh Circuit· 1903-02-05· cited 25×
- Gamewell Fire-Alarm Telegraph Co. v. City of BrooklynU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern New York· 1882-11-15· cited 20×
- Gordon v. AnthonyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1879-05-03· cited 12×
- Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court· 1892-04-04· cited 8×
- Dibble v. AugurU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1869-12-30· cited 6×
- Ball v. CokerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina· 1909-02-24· cited 5×
- Consolidated Oil Well Packer Co. v. Baton, Cole & Burnham Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut· 1882-07-20· cited 4×
- Henry v. Francestown Soap-Stone Stove Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire· 1876-01-28· cited 4×
- Hayward v. AndrewsU.S. Circuit Court· 1882-07-07· cited 3×
- Grey v. ThomasD. New Jersey· 1878-02-26· cited 2×
- Hamilton v. RollinsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota· 1877-09-15· cited 2×
- Nellis v. Pennock Manuf'g Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania· 1889-02-13· cited 2×
Other cases named Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine Works
1 other CourtListener record shares 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.