Textile Productions, Inc. v. Mead Corporation and Fiber Trim Sewing Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a requirements contract for the accused product did not convert the exclusive supplier into an “exclusive licensee” because the licensor did not promise that all others would be excluded from practicing the patented invention
• finding that patentee retained right to license to third parties when agreement was silent on the subject
• “The use of the word ‘exclusive’ is not controlling; what matters is the substance of the arrangement.”
• “Upon dismissal of the patent infringement claim 14 for lack of standing, the district court lacked supplemental jurisdiction to consider the 15 contract claim.”
• internal citations and quotation marks omitted; internal ellipses in original; emphasis added

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).