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

Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co. Et Al.

• 1938 • 307 U.S. 243 • Hughes Court
In the case of Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co., 1938, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a patent held by Maytag for its washing machine design had been infringed upon by Hurley Machine Co. The lower courts ruled in favor of Maytag, finding that Hurley's product did indeed infrally on their patent rights. However, when brought before the Supreme Court, this ruling was overturned. The court found that while there were similarities between both machines' designs...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 Hughes Court
Term: 1938
Docket: 76
307 U.S. 243
59 S. Ct. 857
83 L. Ed. 1264
1939 U.S. LEXIS 1161
Argued: Apr 19, 1939

Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co. Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co., 1938, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a patent held by Maytag for its washing machine design had been infringed upon by Hurley Machine Co. The lower courts ruled in favor of Maytag, finding that Hurley's product did indeed infrally on their patent rights. However, when brought before the Supreme Court, this ruling was overturned. The court found that while there were similarities between both machines' designs and functions, these elements were common to all washing machines and therefore could not be patented exclusively by one company. Furthermore, it was determined that any differences between the two designs were merely improvements made by Hurley on existing technology rather than an infringement on unique aspects of Maytag’s design.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Maytag Company v. Hurley Machine Co., the justice disagreed with the majority's view that there was patent infringement. The justice argued that while both washing machines in question used a similar mechanism to agitate clothes, this did not constitute patent infringement as such mechanisms were common and not unique to either company. Furthermore, they contended that even if one could argue that there was some level of similarity between the two designs, it would be impossible to determine which company had first come up with it due to lack of evidence. Therefore, according to them, no violation occurred since neither party could claim exclusive rights over a commonly-used design feature without clear proof of originality or uniqueness.

Opinion written by Justice OJRoberts
Decided: May 22, 1939
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