This case concerned patent infringement claims involving vacuum tube amplifiers licensed under field-of-use restrictions, where some licenses were limited to home radio uses and others to commercial theater sound equipment. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding that General Talking Pictures Corp. infringed the patents by ordering and using amplifiers that a licensee (American Transformer Company) had manufactured and sold outside the scope of its non-exclusive license for radio purposes. The Court held that such restrictions are valid because a patentee may grant licenses conditioned on use within particular fields, and any manufacture or sale beyond those terms constitutes infringement equivalent to having no license at all; both the licensee and the knowing purchaser were therefore liable. The decision did not reach questions about restrictions on devices sold in ordinary commerce under unrestricted licenses.
Minnesota sought to condemn a right of way for a state highway across allotted parcels of the Grand Portage Indian Reservation held in trust by the United States for individual Chippewa Indians. The state named the United States as a defendant in state court proceedings, but the United States moved to dismiss, arguing lack of consent to suit. The Supreme Court held that the United States is an indispensable party because it holds fee title in trust, making the condemnation action a suit against the sovereign that requires its consent. The Court further reasoned that neither the 1901 Act's condemnation provision nor the 1854 Treaty authorized the state to proceed without permission from the Secretary of the Interior under the separate highway provision, nor did removal to federal court constitute consent. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing the action was affirmed.
The case involved an Indiana beer manufacturer challenging a Michigan law that banned Michigan dealers from selling beer produced in states whose laws discriminate against Michigan beer, including Indiana due to its permit and fee requirements for out-of-state beer. The plaintiff argued the Michigan law violated the commerce clause and the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision upholding the law, reasoning that the Twenty-first Amendment grants states broad authority to regulate or prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquors, which is not constrained by the commerce clause or equal protection requirements, and the state's power to prevent sales of such liquors is established.
The case involved challenges to a Missouri statute, known as the Anti-Discrimination or Retaliation Act, that prohibited the transportation, importation, purchase, sale, receipt, or possession of alcoholic liquor manufactured in any state found to impose discriminatory restrictions on Missouri-made liquor. Plaintiffs, who were liquor manufacturers or rectifiers holding permits to import and sell in Missouri, sought to enjoin enforcement of the law on grounds that it violated the commerce clause and the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief and dismissal of the complaints. The Court held that the Twenty-first Amendment confers on states the authority to forbid or condition the importation of intoxicating liquor without restriction by the commerce clause, as the amendment's text permits states to prescribe conditions for such importations.
This case involved a dispute between National Biscuit Company and Kellogg Company over the use of the name 'shredded wheat' and the pillow-shaped form for a breakfast cereal product. National Biscuit claimed exclusive rights based on prior use and trademarks, alleging unfair competition and passing off by Kellogg. The Supreme Court held that National Biscuit did not have exclusive rights to the generic term 'shredded wheat' or the functional pillow shape, as these entered the public domain after the expiration of related patents. The Court reasoned that the name accurately describes the product and that Kellogg had taken steps to distinguish its product, preventing any likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, the Court reversed the injunction against Kellogg.
This case involved a challenge by an Illinois liquor manufacturer to a Minnesota statute requiring registration of high-alcohol brands in the U.S. Patent Office before they could be imported and sold in the state, which favored locally processed liquors. The lower court granted an injunction against enforcement, finding it violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Twenty-first Amendment empowers states to regulate or prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquors without being constrained by the equal protection clause, as classifications recognized by the Amendment are not forbidden by the Fourteenth. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's broad language allows states to impose conditions on imports, even if discriminatory, and did not need to assess the reasonableness of the regulation.
