Lauria v. Lippolis Constr., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that a defendant can be held liable for contributory infringement if its customers directly infringe
• ruling that a defendant can be held liable for contributory infringement if its customers directly infringe
• holding that licensed products can be repaired and maintained provided that there is no reconstruction
• holding that “if there is no direct infringement of a patent there can be no contributory infringement.”
• observing that \the claims made in the patent are the sole measure of the grant\
• recognizing that “if anything is settled in the patent law, it is that the combination patent covers only the totality of the elements in the claim and that no element, separately viewed, is within the grant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).