In Re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation. Sauquoit Fibers Company v. Leesona Corporation, Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Hialeah Knitting Mills, Inc., Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Universal Textured Yarns, Inc., and G. Allen Mebane, Individually, Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Concordia Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Paul O. Boghossian, Jr., Individually, Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Burlington Industries, Inc., Lex Tex Ltd., Inc. v. Gold Mills, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
541 F.2d 1127 · 1977
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Jp Stevens Co Inc v. Lex Tex Ltd Inc (1984), Local P-171 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America v. Thompson Farms Company Plank (1981)
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Desist v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A patentee may usually exact whatever royalty it wishes. But, Leesona and Permatwist elected to take a one-third reduction in their royalty income. There is nothing in the patent laws that allows them to decide unilaterally that the machine manufacturers would get the entire benefit of their own royalty reduction. By allocating this benefit, Leesona guaranteed income to the manufacturers and effectively fixed the price of the machinery. The machinery manufacturers who participated in the scheme were protected against free competition and free bargaining in effecting their sales to throwsters.” 541 F.2d at p. 1136 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal . . . ” Section 2 of the Sherman Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 2 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.