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

William R. Warner & Company v. Eli Lilly & Company

• 1923 • 265 U.S. 526 • Taft Court
In the case of William R. Warner & Company v. Eli Lilly & Company, 1923, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eli Lilly and upheld their patent rights for a medicine called "Elixir Sulfanilamide". The court found that William R. Warner & Co had infringed on this patent by producing a similar product without permission from Eli Lilly. This decision was significant as it reinforced the importance of intellectual property rights within pharmaceutical industry and set precedent for future cases...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 Taft Court
Term: 1923
Docket: 32
265 U.S. 526
44 S. Ct. 615
68 L. Ed. 1161
1924 U.S. LEXIS 2633
Argued: Apr 28, 1924

William R. Warner & Company v. Eli Lilly & Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of William R. Warner & Company v. Eli Lilly & Company, 1923, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eli Lilly and upheld their patent rights for a medicine called "Elixir Sulfanilamide". The court found that William R. Warner & Co had infringed on this patent by producing a similar product without permission from Eli Lilly. This decision was significant as it reinforced the importance of intellectual property rights within pharmaceutical industry and set precedent for future cases involving drug patents.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for William R. Warner & Company v. Eli Lilly & Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on a medical compound known as "adrenalin" was flawed because it granted monopoly rights over a naturally occurring substance. The dissenting justices believed that such substances should not be subject to patents, regardless of whether they had been isolated or purified by human intervention. They contended that allowing such patents would stifle competition and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, as companies could prevent others from using natural substances simply by being the first to isolate them. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of this power and its impact on public health and welfare.

Opinion written by Justice GSutherland
Decided: Jun 09, 1924
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