Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.

Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 15, 1908 Decided June 1, 1908
Full case name	Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.
Holding
It was not unreasonable for a patent owner to use existing equipment embodying old technology rather than to build new machines using new patents. Also, it was not unreasonable for the patent owner to refuse to license others to use its new patents.
Court membership
Chief Justice Melville Fuller Associate Justices John M. Harlan · David J. Brewer Edward D. White · Rufus W. Peckham Joseph McKenna · Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. William R. Day · William H. Moody
Case opinions
Majority	McKenna
Dissent	Harlan

Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908)^[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.

Facts

Eastern Paper Bag brought an action to prevent its competitor Continental Paper Bag from using its patent for a "self-opening" paper bag. Continental Paper Bag alleged that Eastern Paper Bag was not using its patent but simply trying to suppress competition.

Decision of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court rejected this argument by Continental Paper Bag, holding that it was the essence of the patent to exclude others without question of motive.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 210
• Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945)

Further reading

• Chin, Yee Wah (1997). "Unilateral Technology Suppression: Appropriate Antitrust and Patent Law Remedies". Antitrust Law Journal 66: 441. http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020522chindoc4.pdf. 
• Hovenkamp, Herbert; Janis, Mark D.; Lemley, Mark A. (2005). "Unilateral Refusals to License in the U.S". SSRN Electronic Journal (Working Paper No. 303, Stanford Law School John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics). doi:10.2139/ssrn.703161. 

External links

• ^ 210 U.S. 405 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.