Drackett Chemical Co. v. Chamberlain Co.’s Empirical Analysis
63 F.2d 853 · 1933
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2005 · most notably Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969), Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Industries, Inc. (1968)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
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 Gayler v. Wilder · United States v. Harvey Steel Co. · Marston v. . Swett · Eureka Company v. Bailey Company · Marston v. . Swett
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But it seems to us that a different situation must of necessity arise where the monopoly, apparently created by the grant of a patent, has been destroyed by a decree of invalidity in a court of competent jurisdiction. The subject-matter of such a contract is essentially ‘the monopoly which the grant confers: the right of property which it creates’ (citation), and, when this monopoly has been destroyed, and the exclusive rights of manufacture, sale, and use, purported to have been created by the patent are judicially decreed to be no longer exclusive, but are thrown open to the public at large, there has been a complete failure of consideration — an eviction — which should justify a termination of the contract.” (Parenthesis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is suggested that • here the license contract was more than a mere license, in that it contained a provision that the Chamberlain Company would not advertise or solicit business from the grocery trade; and that the Drac-kett Chemical Company, having purchased immunity from suits for past or future infringement, by its agreement to pay royalties, should not now be permitted to deny such liability. The first of these suggestions is without weight. Licenses may be exclusive, partially exclusive, or nonexclusive. The principles which we have stated apply with equal force to all these types, * * 63 F.2d at 854-855 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is only when, by judicial decree or otherwise, it is published to the world that the monopoly is destroyed, that the licensee can claim a corresponding release from his obligation to pay royalties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.