This HTML5 document contains 102 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n15https://scholar.google.com/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n21https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
n14https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/91/922/1494674/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n17http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep304/usrep304175/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n7https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/103020/general-pictures-co-v-electric-co/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n22http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage%3FcollId=llsl&fileName=018/
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n16https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/175/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:General_Talking_Pictures_Corp._v._Western_Electric_Co.
rdf:type
wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:UnitOfWork dbo:LegalCase owl:Thing dbo:Case dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase
rdfs:label
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.
rdfs:comment
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U.S. 175 (1938), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1938. The decision upheld so-called field-of-use limitations in patent licenses: it held that the limitations were enforceable in a patent infringement suit in federal court against the licensee and those acting in concert with it—for example, a customer that knowingly buys a patented product from the licensee that is outside the scope of the license.
foaf:name
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co.
dcterms:subject
dbc:1938_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Bell_System dbc:United_States_patent_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Hughes_Court
dbo:wikiPageID
20191036
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1018433712
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Ethyl_Gasoline_Corp._v._United_States dbc:Bell_System dbc:1938_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Ethyl_Gasoline_Corporation dbr:Hugo_Black dbr:Field-of-use_limitation dbr:Free_market dbr:Quanta_Computer,_Inc._v._LG_Electronics,_Inc. dbr:Hartford-Empire_Co._v._United_States dbr:License dbr:L._Ed. dbr:Radio_receiver dbc:United_States_patent_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Vacuum_tube dbr:Revised_Statutes_of_the_United_States dbr:Transfer_(patent) dbr:Patent_pool dbr:Tetra-ethyl_lead dbr:Commodity dbr:U.S.P.Q. dbr:AT&T dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Hughes_Court dbr:Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law dbr:Personal_property dbr:Field-of-use dbr:2d_Cir. dbr:Nonexclusive_license dbr:Amplifier dbr:Patent_infringement dbr:Theater dbr:F.2d dbr:U.S._LEXIS
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n7: n14: n16:case.html n17:usrep304175.pdf n15:scholar_case%3Fcase=17674275934744852078 n22:llsl018.db&recNum=1018
owl:sameAs
yago-res:General_Talking_Pictures_Corp._v._Western_Electric_Co. wikidata:Q5287606 freebase:m.04y8_mr n21:4jA65
dbp:subsequent
Affirmed on rehearing, .
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Reflist dbt:Primary_sources dbt:BBstyle dbt:USC dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:Ussc dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:Multiple_issues dbt:USArticleI dbt:Original_research dbt:More_citations_needed dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case
dbp:dissent
Black
dbp:joinmajority
Hughes, McReynolds, Sutherland, Stone
dbp:lawsapplied
Rev. Stat. § 4886, as amended,
dbp:parallelcitations
58
dbp:prior
17280.0
dbp:uspage
175
dbp:usvol
304
dbp:argueyear
1937
dbp:case
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.,
dbp:courtlistener
n7:
dbp:decidedate
0001-11-21
dbp:decideyear
1938
dbp:fullname
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Elec. Co.
dbp:holding
The owner of a patent may lawfully restrict his licensee to manufacture and sale of the patented invention for use in only one or some of several distinct fields in which it is useful, excluding him from the others. Where a licensee, so restricted, makes and sells the patented article for a use outside the scope of his license, he is an infringer, and his vendee, buying with knowledge of the facts, is likewise an infringer. Affirmed.
dbp:justia
n16:case.html
dbp:litigants
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co.
dbp:majority
Butler
dbp:loc
n17:usrep304175.pdf
dbo:abstract
General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U.S. 175 (1938), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided in 1938. The decision upheld so-called field-of-use limitations in patent licenses: it held that the limitations were enforceable in a patent infringement suit in federal court against the licensee and those acting in concert with it—for example, a customer that knowingly buys a patented product from the licensee that is outside the scope of the license. A field-of-use limitation is a provision in a patent license that limits the scope of what the patent owner authorizes a manufacturing licensee (that is, a licensee that manufactures a patented product or performs a patented process) to use the patent to make a specified product or do specified things. The license specifies a defined field of permissible operation or specifies fields from which the licensee is excluded. By way of example, such a license might authorize a licensee to manufacture patented engines only for incorporation into trucks, or to manufacture such engines only for sale to farmers, or only engines rated from 100 to 200 horsepower. More generally, this kind of license permits the licensee to use the patented invention in some, but not all, possible ways in which the invention could be exploited. In an exclusive field-of-use license the licensee is the only person authorized to use the invention in the field of the license. The General Talking Pictures doctrine does not apply to all cases in which a patent owner imposes a restriction on what may subsequently be done with the patented product. When the patent owner sells a patented product to a customer, for example, the exhaustion doctrine applies instead and the patent no longer operates to limit what the customer does with the product or in what field the customer uses it.
dbp:arguedatea
0001-12-13
dbp:arguedateb
4
dbp:googlescholar
n15:scholar_case%3Fcase=17674275934744852078
dbp:rearguedatea
0001-10-19
dbp:rearguedateb
20
dbp:reargueyear
1938
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:General_Talking_Pictures_Corp._v._Western_Electric_Co.?oldid=1018433712&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
12230
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:General_Talking_Pictures_Corp._v._Western_Electric_Co.