Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Cory Corporation Et Al. v. Sauber

• 1959 • 363 U.S. 709 • Warren Court
In the case of Cory Corporation et al. v. Sauber in 1959, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and royalties between two corporations: Cory Corporation and Sauber. The main issue was whether or not an agreement to pay royalties on products made under a patent extends beyond the expiration date of that patent if it is not explicitly stated in their contract. The lower courts had ruled in favor of Sauber, stating that they were entitled to receive royalty payments even...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Warren Court
Term: 1959
Docket: 436
363 U.S. 709
80 S. Ct. 1331
4 L. Ed. 2d 1508
1960 U.S. LEXIS 1992
Argued: May 16, 1960

Cory Corporation Et Al. v. Sauber

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Cory Corporation et al. v. Sauber in 1959, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights and royalties between two corporations: Cory Corporation and Sauber. The main issue was whether or not an agreement to pay royalties on products made under a patent extends beyond the expiration date of that patent if it is not explicitly stated in their contract. The lower courts had ruled in favor of Sauber, stating that they were entitled to receive royalty payments even after the patents expired because there was no explicit end date mentioned for these payments within their licensing agreement. However, upon reaching the Supreme Court, this decision was overturned based on precedent set by previous cases (Brulotte v Thys Co). It held that such agreements could be interpreted as an improper attempt to extend monopoly power granted by a patent beyond its statutory limit - which is illegal under antitrust laws. Therefore, any contractual obligation requiring payment of royalties for use of a trade secret or patented invention must cease once said protection expires unless otherwise specified clearly within terms agreed upon by both parties involved.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Cory Corporation et al. v. Sauber, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Sauber was incorrect because it failed to consider important aspects of contract law and business practices. The dissenting justice believed that Cory Corporation had not breached its contract with Sauber as claimed, but rather acted within its rights under their agreement. They also disagreed with how damages were calculated by the lower courts, arguing they were excessive and did not accurately reflect actual losses suffered by Sauber due to alleged breach of contract by Cory Corporation. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on future contractual relationships between businesses if such rulings are upheld without proper consideration for established legal principles and commercial realities.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: Jun 20, 1960
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms