United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corporation

Decision Date08 May 1933
Docket NumberNo. 318,No. 317,No. 316,316,317,318
PartiesThe UNITED STATES of America, petitioner, v. DUBILIER CONDENSER CORPORATION. The UNITED STATES of America, petitioner, v. DUBILIER CONDENSER CORPORATION. The UNITED STATES of America, petitioner, v. DUBILIER CONDENSER CORPORATION
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Thomas D. Thacher, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D. C., Charles B. Rugg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alexander Holtzoff, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., Paul D. Miller, of Washington, D. C., and H. Brian Holland, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the United States.

Messrs. James H. Hughes, Jr., and E. Ennalls Berl, both of Wilmington, Del. (Messrs. Ward & Gray, of Wilmington, Del., and John B. Brady, of Washington, D. C., of counsel), for respondent.

For opinion below, see 59 F.(2d) 381.

Ordered that the opinion in this case (289 U. S. 178, 53 S. Ct. 554, 77 L. Ed. ——) be amended as follows:

By striking out the following paragraph:

'Moreover no court could, however clear the proof of such a contract, order the execution of an assignment. No act of Congress has been called to our attention authorizing the United States to take a patent or to hold one by assignment. No statutory authority exists for the transfer of a patent to any department or officer of the Government, or for the administration of patents, or the issuance of licenses on behalf of the United States. In these circumstances no publi policy requires us to deprive the inventor of his exclusive rights as respects the general public and to lodge them in a dead hand incapable of turning the patent to account for the benefit of the public.'

now appearing on page 12 of said opinion.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Liggett Group, Inc. v. Sunas
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 21 d2 Dezembro d2 1993
    ... ... Department of Liggett, a Durham-based corporation engaged in the manufacture of tobacco products ... United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178, ... ...
  • Simpson Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 14 d1 Fevereiro d1 1944
    ... ... these included a question whether the corporation was a personal holding company within the meaning ... United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172, 2 L.Ed. 397; ... ...
  • John A. Northen, Chapter 7 Tr. for C&M Invs. of High Point, Inc. v. MDC Innovations, LLC (In re C&M Invs. of High Point Inc.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Middle District of North Carolina
    • 25 d3 Maio d3 2016
    ...by assignment. If not yet issued, an agreement to assign when issued, if valid as a contract, will be specifically enforced."), amended 289 U.S. 706. Under North Carolina law, "[s]pecific performance will not be decreed unless the terms of the contract are so definite and certain that the a......
  • Morris v. Scenera Research, LLC
    • United States
    • Superior Court of North Carolina
    • 4 d3 Janeiro d3 2012
    ...law. See United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178, 186-87, 53 S.Ct. 554, 557, 77 L.Ed. 1114, 1118, amended by, 289 U.S. 706, 77 L.Ed. 1462 (1933); Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403, 407 (1996); Speck v. N.C. Dairy Foundation, Inc., 311 N.C. 679, 686, 319 S.E.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT