Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation and Edward E. Simmons, Jr. v. Tatnall Measuring Systems Company and Budd Company
Cases that cite this one
33 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- The Bendix Corporation and Sellew Corporation v. Balax, Inc. And John M. Van Vleet (7th Cir. 1973)
- Monsanto Company v. Rohm & Haas Company (3d Cir. 1972)
- Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The United States (Court of Claims 1971)
- Phillips Electronic & Pharmaceutical Industries Corp. v. Thermal & Electronics Industries, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1970)
- Australia Vision Services Pty. Ltd. v. Dioptics Medical Products, Inc. (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1998)
- Ziggity Systems, Inc. v. Val Watering Systems (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1990)
- RE Phelon Co., Inc. v. Wabash, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1986)
- Railroad Dynamics, Inc. v. A. Stucki Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1983)
- United States v. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, M.B.H., Director Max Planck, Institut Fur Kohlenforschung, Hercules Incorporated (D.C. Cir. 1981)
- Wahl v. Rexnord, Inc. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1979)
- Norton Company, Appellant-Cross v. Carborundum Company, Appellee-Cross (1st Cir. 1976)
- Tokyo Shibaura Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1975)
- The Triax Company v. Hartman Metal Fabricators, Inc. (2d Cir. 1973)
- American Industrial Fastener Corp. v. Flushing Enterprises, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1973)
- Congoleum Industries, Inc. v. Armstrong Cork Company (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1972)
- Blohm & Voss AG v. Prudential-Grace Lines, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 1972)
- Dart Industries, Inc. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1972)
- Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Texas 1971)
- Skega Aktiebolag and the Allen Pump Company v. The B. F. Goodrich Company (6th Cir. 1970)
- Acme Highway Products Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. The D. S. Brown Company and Delmont D. Brown, Cross-Appellants (6th Cir. 1970)
- Hadco Products, Inc. v. Lighting Corp. of America, Inc. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1970)
- Monsanto Company v. Dawson Chemical Company (District Court, S.D. Texas 1970)
- SCM Corporation v. Radio Corporation of America (District Court, S.D. New York 1970)
- Reeves Brothers, Inc. v. US Laminating Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 1968)
- Waterman-Bic Pen Corp. v. WA SHEAFFER PEN CO., DIV. OF TEX. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1967)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
121 U.S.P.Q. 363, 122 U.S.P.Q. 357
BALDWIN-LIMA-HAMILTON CORPORATION and Edward E. Simmons,
Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants
v.
TATNALL MEASURING SYSTEMS COMPANY and Budd Company,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12846.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued May 7, 1959.
Decided May 20, 1959, Rehearing Denied Aug. 5, 1959.
Walter J. Blenko, Pittsburgh, Pa. (Arthur Littleton, Philadelphia, Pa., Walter J. Blenko, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., Edward A. Hathaway, Waltham, Mass., Blenko, Hoopes, Leonard & Buell, pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Joseph W. Swain, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Dexter N. Shaw, Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr., Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, John C. Dorfman, Howson & Howson, philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.
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.
Sur Petition for Rehearing.
Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, and McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER, STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The petition for rehearing, if anything, makes it clearer than ever that 1. the test body is not an element of the patent, which is for a gage per se, and 2. that appellant Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation illegally limited the use of the Simmons gage by refusing to sell it by itself to prospective customers who wished to use it with strain sensitive apparatus of a type manufactured by appellant Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton, Corporation and its licensees.
The petition for rehearing will be denied.
BIGGS, Chief Judge (dissenting).
The court has extended greatly the patent misuse principle. This extension, applied full force, could prohibit a patentee from employing his invention as a component even in an apparatus of his own manufacture.
I conclude that the test body is a material element in the claimed invention, as the court below first held, and that Section 271, Title 35 U.S.C., may be applicable.
The issues involved are of such fareaching importance as to render desirable rehearing before the court en banc.
For these reasons I must dissent from the order denying rehearing.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.