Court Opinion

ID: 9446888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:20:38.425256+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:49.067854
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals from the finding of misuse of the suit patent.
We agree with the district court that the test body is not an element of the patent which is for a gage per se.
The limitation on use of the gage imposed by appellant, as found by the district court, consists of a flat refusal to sell it to prospective purchasers desirous of using it with strain sensitive apparatus of a type manufactured by Baldwin or its licensees unless the purchase included such apparatus from Baldwin or its licensees. The district court was clearly right in holding: “The enforcement of this policy constituted an illegal expansion of the monopoly conferred by the Simmons patent on the gage per se beyond that contemplated by the patent grant. This misuse is a bar to the enforcement of the patent against the defendants regardless of whether plaintiffs’ activities constituted a violation of the anti-trust laws.”
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed upon the opinion and particularly the supplemental opinion of Judge Steel.