Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P is the owner of various patents for hop-picking. P sold a machine to each D for a flat sum and issued a license for its use. The license called for a minimum royalty of $500 for each hop-picking season or $3.33 1/3 per 200 pounds of dried hops harvested by the machine, whichever is greater. The licenses were nonassignable nor may the machines be removed from Yakima County. The licenses listed 12 patents relating to hop-picking machines. Only seven were incorporated into the machines sold and licensed for use. The seven key patents all expired on or before 1957. The licenses issued continued for terms beyond that date. Ds refused to make royalty payments accruing both before and after the expiration of the patents. P sued Ds. Ds' defense was the misuse of the patents through the extension of the license agreements beyond the expiration date of the patents. P got the judgment and the Supreme Court of Washington affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co