Document: 397 U.S. 586 90 S.Ct. 1310 25 L.Ed.2d 590 STANDARD INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner,v.TIGRETT et al. No. 445. Argued March 2, 1970. Decided April 20, Rehearing Denied June 1, See 398 944, 1835. Walton Bader, New York City, for petitioner. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Ralph W. Kalish, St. Louis, Mo., respondents. Sidney Neuman, Chicago, Ill., American Patent Law Association, curiae. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgments are affirmed an equally divided 2 Affirmed. 3 Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom DOUGLAS joins, dissenting. 4 In this case respondents sued petitioner payments alleged to be due under a patent-licensing agreement. At trial and on appeal defended primarily ground that its product did not involve any use respondent's patent. Petitioner at time attack validity patent itself, apparently conceded controlling law prevented it from doing so. District Court found utilize patented invention awarded damages. Appeals Sixth Circuit in opinion delivered May 27, 1969, 411 F.2d 1218 (1969). 5 On 16, decided Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 653, 89 1902, 23 610, licensee could That specifically overruled patent-licensee estoppel doctrine applied Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. Hazaltine Research, Inc., 339 827, 70 894, 94 L.Ed. 1312 (1950), was all times proceedings below. now seeks patent, but argue since issue never raised below, cannot litigated. 6 failure assert invalidity below cannot, these circumstances, deemed waiver defense. has recognized effective must 'an intentional relinquishment or abandonment known right privilege,' Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 464, 58 1019, 1023, 82 1461 (1938), we have frequently allowed parties raise issues first when there been significant change trial. This principle most often relating criminal prosecutions,1 also invoked purely civil cases.2 limited constitutional issues, permitted consideration statutory arguments presented below.3 deciding whether such new can considered, considered three factors: first, material law; second, assertion earlier would futile; third, important public interest is served allowing issue. It clear me criteria met case. 7 Undoubtedly our decision Lear major field law. implicitly fact overruling holding Radio. court satisfied applicable precluded licensees4 thus argument point futile. Finally, importantly, overriding challenge Last Term unanimously held 'the public's elimination specious patents significantly prejudiced if retroactive effect (Lear) were way.' supra, U.S., 674 n. 19, S.Ct., 1913. I do understand how today's reconciled statement. Although analytically may present question retroactivity, felt required full retroactivity compelling reason petitioner's spite concessions vacate remand determination White Maryland, 373 59, 83 1050, 10 193 (1963); cf. McConnell Rhay, 393 32, 21 (1968); Tehan States ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 86 459, 15 453 (1966); Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 622—629, 85 1731, 1733—1737, 14 601 (1965); Griffin California, 380 609, 1229, 106 (1965). Curtis Publishing Butts, 388 130, 142—145 (opinion Harlan, J.), 172 (separate Brennan, 87 1975, 1984—1986, 18 1094 (1967); Rosenblatt Baer, 383 75, 669, 597 Uebersee Finanz-Korp, A.G. McGrath, 343 205, 213, 72 621, 96 888 (1952); Hormel Helvering, 312 552, 556—557, 61 719, 721—722, 1037 (1941). Commissioner Internal Revenue rely § 22(a) Act 1934 although his before Board Tax had rested solely §§ 166 167. We so because intervening Helvering Clifford, 309 331, 60 554, 84 788 (1940). App. 52a, 129a—3.

Category: 7