Supreme Court· 4/5/1948

United States v. Line Material Co.

Citations

333 U.S. 287
68 S. Ct. 550
92 L. Ed. 2d 701
1948 U.S. LEXIS 2732

How courts have described this case

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

holding a patent pooling agreement that fixed the prices at which licensees would sell the patented product per se illegal
price-fixing illegal where two patentees cross- license each other’s patents, since this is more than mere exploitation of patents
“During its term, a valid patent excludes all except its owner from the use of the protected process or product. This monopoly may be enjoyed exclusively by the patentee or he may assign the patent ‘or any interest therein’ to others.” (citations omitted)
illegal \whether it is a price agreement between producers for sale or between producer and distributor for resale\
illegal “whether it is a price agreement between producers for sale or between producer and distributor for resale”
“The Sherman Act was enacted to prevent restraints of commerce but has been interpreted as recognizing that patent grants were an exception.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Reed, Douglas, Burton, Jackson, Black, Murphy, Rutledge, Frankfurter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

124 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

51 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Line Material Co.

2 other CourtListener records share 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.