Crowell

Crowell v. Baker Oil Tools, Inc.

Good Law
99 F.2d 574·39 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 357·1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 2926
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 7, 1938No. 8850California2,449 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haney, J.

A decree adjudicating -to be valid and subsisting, a license agreement from appellant to appellee, and a license agreement from appellee to appellant, is challenged by the latter.

Appellee filed a bill alleging ownership of patent No. ,1,685,307 issued to Baker, September 25, 1928; patent to Baker No. 1,748,007, issued February 18, 1930; and patent to Mellin, No. 1,859,593, issued May 24, 1932; and infringement thereof by appellant. Appellant answered, alleging among other things that he had a license from appellee to manufacture and sell the subject matter of each claim alleged to be infringed. In, a counter-claim appellant alleged infringement of patent No. 1,432,017, re-issue patent No. 16,516, issued to him on October 17, 1922 and January 4, 1927, respectively. In answer to the counter-claim appellee alleged that on August 1, 1935, appellant had granted it a license to manufacture and sell devices embodying the inventions of the last named patent.

Had further pleadings been permitted, the issues thereunder would have been, ac *575 cording to briefs of counsel, whether or not the license granted appellee had been rescinded by appellant for (1) fraud, (2) mistake, or (3)…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.