Dunlop Holdings Ltd. v. Ram Golf Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
524 F.2d 33, 188 U.S.P.Q. 481 (1975)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
In 1964, Butch Wagner began experimenting with a resin product called Surlyn, using it to coat golf balls to make them more durable. By November 5, Wagner had developed what he considered a commercially viable formula for Surlyn-covered golf balls. By February 1965, Wagner had received orders for more than 12,000 such golf balls. Wagner continued to acquire Surlyn to produce more of the golf balls, but he did not apply for a patent on the invention. Dunlop Holdings Ltd. (Dunlop) (plaintiff) obtained a patent for a golf ball with the same coating, for which Dunlop claimed a February 1965 date of invention. Later, Dunlop brought a patent-infringement action against Ram Golf Corp. (Ram) (defendant) in federal district court. Ram argued that the Dunlop patent was invalidated by Wagner’s prior invention. The court agreed. Dunlop appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing that Wagner’s failure to seek patent protection amounted to suppression or concealment of his invention.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
