TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hensley Equipment Company, Inc. v. Esco Corporation

HENSLEY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. ESCO CORPORATION, Appellee

Hensley Equip. Co. v. Esco Corp., 386 F.2d 442 (5th Cir. 1967)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 17, 1967
Docket
No. 23723
Judges
Bell, Godbold, Dyer
Citations
386 F.2d 442155 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 6731967 U.S. App. LEXIS 44891967 Trade Cas. (CCH) 72,303
Summary
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing of Esco, the appellee, should be granted in part and denied in part.

Esco alleges in its Petition that since the entry of the opinion and judgment of this Court on September 15, 1967, it has purged itself of its patent misuse consisting of violation of the Sherman Act which this Court found it had committed by its contract with Caterpillar Tractor Company. Esco states that on September 27, 1967, it entered into a Supplemental Agreement with Caterpillar, amending the Caterpillar contract so as to remove the features which caused the contract to be a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Esco has attached to its Petition what it says is a copy of the Supplemental Agreement.

It is in the interest of all the parties and of the public that it be determined in this case, without the necessity of filing additional litigation, whether Esco has purged itself of patent misuse and, if it has done so, the present rights and status of the parties following the discontinuance of the monopolistic practices. Nova-del-Agene Corporation v. Penn, 119 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1941).

The judgment of the Court is amended to read as follows:

The findings of the district court that the patent is valid and that Hensley has infringed the patent are affirmed. The finding that Esco has not misused the patent is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court for such further proceedings as are appropriate.

In all other respects the Petition for Rehearing is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 11974: 11975: 11980: 11982: 11985: 11988: 11990: 119722026peak 1972 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Job Reynolds Larry Holliday, and Holiday Steel Rule Die Corporation911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990)
  2. ESCO CORPORATION v. Tru-Rol Company, Inc.352 F. Supp. 416 (D. Maryland 1972)
  3. Usm Corporation v. Sps Technologies, Inc.694 F.2d 505 (7th Cir. 1982)
  4. Coca-Cola Company v. Howard Johnson Company386 F. Supp. 330 (N.D. Ga. 1974)
  5. Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products, Inc.489 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Ohio 1980)
  6. Holleman v. United States612 F. Supp. 384 (N.D. Ind. 1985)

Most recent

  1. Lasercomb America, Inc. v. Job Reynolds Larry Holliday, and Holiday Steel Rule Die Corporation911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990)
  2. Clausen Co. v. Clausen Co.81 B.R. 285 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988)
  3. Holleman v. United States612 F. Supp. 384 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
  4. Usm Corporation v. Sps Technologies, Inc.694 F.2d 505 (7th Cir. 1982)
  5. Skil Corp. v. Lucerne Products, Inc.489 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Ohio 1980)
  6. Pet Incorporated v. Kysor Industrial Corporation404 F. Supp. 1252 (W.D. Mich. 1975)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Novadel-Agene Corp. v. Penn, 119 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1941) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list