Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Manufacturing Co. (329 U.S. 394)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 6, 1947 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 329 U.S. 394 · 67 S. Ct. 416
- Docket
- No. 70
- Argued
- November 14, 1946
- Decided
- January 6, 1947
- Term
- October Term 1946
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Black
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
How the Justices voted
- Majority
- Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Douglas, Justice Black (wrote), Justice Rutledge, Justice Murphy
- Dissenting
- Justice Burton, Justice R. H. Jackson, Justice Frankfurter (wrote), Justice Reed
Opinion excerpt
MR. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. The question here is whether the defendant, in a suit to recover royalties only under a terminated patent license agreement containing price-fixing provisions, can challenge the validity of the patent despite a covenant in the license contract that he would not do so. The petitioner, Edward Katzinger Company, and the respondent, Chicago Metallic Mfg. Company, make and sell tin baking pans. The undenied testimony was that Metallic sold its pans over a large part of the United States, probably in every state in the country. Katzinger became owner of Jackson patent No. 2,077,757 on a certain type of pan. Metallic, accused of infringing, entered into a licensing contract under which, upon payment of stipulated royalties, it was authorized to manufacture and sell pans made in accordance with the claimed invention. Sections 3 and 11 of the license contract, set out below, provided that Metallic, like all other licensees, should sell these pans at prices fixed by Katzinger. Royalties were to be computed on the basis of “net sales” of articles “made in accordance with any of the patents or applications under this license.” Section 14 provided that if Metallic elected to terminate the contract, without ceasing to manufacture the pans, Metallic should “be estopped from denying the validity of said patent . . . and be deemed an…
Excerpt of a 14,011-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.