Macgregor v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. (329 U.S. 402)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 6, 1947 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 329 U.S. 402 · 67 S. Ct. 421
- Decided
- January 6, 1947
- Term
- October Term 1946
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Black
- Issue area
- Economic Activity
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
- Precedent
- This decision overruled or formally altered earlier precedent
Opinion excerpt
Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court. This case, like that of Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Mfg. Co., ante, p. 394, this day decided, involves the right of a patent licensee to defend a suit for royalties only under a licensing agreement which contains a price-fixing provision. Certain subsidiary questions are also raised. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company owned Jones’ Patent No. 1,651,709. The invention claimed was a brazing “solder comprising copper and phosphorus as the main and essential constituents.” Westinghouse sued MacGregor for infringement. The litigation was settled, and MacGregor took a license from Westinghouse authorizing MacGregor to make, use, and sell solder containing the constituents described in Westinghouse’s patent claim. MacGregor agreed to pay 10% royalties on the net selling price of the solder. Sections 5 and 6 of the license agreement, set out below, required MacGregor to sell the solder for no less than the price Westinghouse charged its own customers. MacGregor paid royalties on solder he made and sold which contained only phosphorus and copper. Later he began to make and sell solders composed of phosphorus, copper, and tin, or phosphorus, copper, and silver. For a time he paid royalties on these. But he also applied for and obtained patents on these two latter solders which added tin and silver respectively…
Excerpt of a 25,819-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.