Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.
Citations
- 224 U.S. 1
- 32 S. Ct. 364
- 56 L. Ed. 645
- 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2279
Syllabus
<p>Complainant sold his patented machine embodying the invention claimed and described in the patent, and attached to the machine a license restriction that it only be used in connection with certain unpatented articles made by the vendor of the machine; with the knowledge of such license agreement and with the expectation that it would be used in connection with the said machine, defendant sold to the- vendee of the machine an unpatented article of the class described in the license restriction. Held that the act of defendant constituted contributory infringement of complainant’s patent.</p> <p>This court does not prescribe the jurisdiction of courts, Federal or state, but only gives effect to it as fixed by law.</p> <p>A suit for infringement which turns upon the scope of the patent and privileges of the patentee thereunder presents a case arising under the patent law.</p> <p>In determining questions of jurisdiction this court never shirks the responsibility of maintaining the lines of separation defined in the Constitution and' the laws made in pursuance thereof.</p> <p>A patentee who has leased his patent to a licensee under restrictions may waive the tort involved in infringement and sue upon the broken contract; but in that event the case is not one arising under the patent laws and, in absence of diversity of citizenship, a Federal court has no jurisdiction thereof.</p> <p>Whether the case' is one of infringement, of which the Federal court has jurisdiction or of contract of which it has not jurisdiction^ often determined by the remedy which complainaint seeks.</p> <p>The test of jurisdiction is whether complainant does or does not set up a right, title or interest under the patent laws or make it appear that a right or privilege will be defeated by one, or sustained by another, construction of those laws.</p> <p>Whether a patentee may lawfully impose restrictions on the use of a patent and whether the violation thereof constitutes infringement are questions
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding liability because the sale was made “with the purpose and intent” that the object be used for patent infringement
- referring to “an account- ing for damages for past infringement” in a patent case
- referring to “an accounting for damages for past infringement” in a patent case
- contributory liability for patent infringement may be found where a good's \most conspicuous use is one which will coöperate in an infringement when sale to such user is invoked by advertisement\ of the infringing use
- contributory liability for patent infringement may be found where a good’s “most conspicuous use is one which will cooperate in an infringement when sale to such user is invoked by advertisement” of the infringing use
- all describ- ing Wallace as an example of contributory infringement
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lueton, White, Day
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
157 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court· 1988-06-17· cited 2,587×
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.Supreme Court· 1984-01-17· cited 978×
- Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. HydeSupreme Court· 1984-03-27· cited 891×
- Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.Supreme Court· 1932-04-11· cited 745×
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A.Supreme Court· 2011-05-31· cited 600×
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.Supreme Court· 2005-06-27· cited 539×
- Standard Oil Co. of California v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1949-06-13· cited 495×
- Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Investment Co.Supreme Court· 1944-02-07· cited 490×
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court· 1961-04-17· cited 381×
- Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court· 1917-04-09· cited 365×
- United Shoe MacHinery Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1922-04-17· cited 322×
- United States v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court· 1926-11-23· cited 310×
- Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp.Supreme Court· 1931-03-09· cited 270×
- Washington v. W. C. Dawson & Co.Supreme Court· 1924-02-25· cited 268×
- Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Bausch & Lomb IncorporatedFederal Circuit· 1990-07-30· cited 261×
- Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court of Del. for New Castle Cty.Supreme Court· 1961-05-29· cited 231×
- Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.Supreme Court· 2006-03-01· cited 216×
- Dawson Chemical Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.Supreme Court· 1980-09-17· cited 198×
- International Business MacHines Corp. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1936-04-27· cited 165×
- United States v. Line Material Co.Supreme Court· 1948-04-05· cited 157×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court· 1908-06-01· cited 504×
- La BourgogneSupreme Court· 1908-05-18· cited 217×
- Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co.Supreme Court· 1894-03-19· cited 196×
- Bloomer v. McQuewanSupreme Court· 1853-03-18· cited 148×
- Pope Manufacturing Co. v. GormullySupreme Court· 1892-04-04· cited 145×
- James G. Wilson v. George A. Sanford and Robert G. MusgroveSupreme Court· 1851-01-18· cited 116×
- Kalem Co. v. Harper BrothersSupreme Court· 1911-11-13· cited 110×
- Excelsior Wooden Pipe Co. v. Pacific Bridge Co.Supreme Court· 1902-05-05· cited 109×
- Boesch v. GraffSupreme Court· 1890-03-03· cited 87×
- Cotton-Tie Co. v. SimmonsSupreme Court· 1882-11-18· cited 77×
- Keeler v. Standard Folding Bed Co.Supreme Court· 1895-04-08· cited 76×
- Albright v. TeasSupreme Court· 1883-01-22· cited 64×
- Chaffee v. Boston Belting Co.Supreme Court· 1859-12-27· cited 58×
- White v. RankinSupreme Court· 1892-04-18· cited 31×
- Brown v. ShannonSupreme Court· 1858-01-25· cited 20×
- Sawin v. GuildU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts· 1813-10-15· cited 17×
- Goodyear v. Union India Rubber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1857-06-30· cited 9×
- Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut· 1875-10-20· cited 8×
- Goodyear v. Congress Rubber Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York· 1856-03-19· cited 6×
- American Cotton-Tie Co. v. SimmonsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island· 1878-06-15· cited 2×
Other cases named Henry v. A. B. Dick Co.
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.