Eagle Comtronics v. Pico Products

705 N.Y.S.2d 758 (2000)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
E
From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Eagle Comtronics v. Pico Products

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
705 N.Y.S.2d 758 (2000)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

In 1984, Pico Products, Inc. (Pico) (defendant) issued a patent license to Arcom. In June 1988, Pico issued a patent license to Eagle Comtronics (Eagle) (plaintiff). The Pico-Eagle agreement contained a most-favored-terms (MFT) provision entitling Eagle to elect more favorable terms “subsequently granted to a licensee who was not then holding a written license.” At the time of the Pico-Eagle agreement, Arcom held a written license. In October 1988, Pico and Arcom revised their agreement, and Arcom received more favorable terms than Eagle had received. Eagle sued Pico for breach of contract and fraud, seeking to obtain the more favorable terms that had been granted to Arcom in October 1998. Pico responded that the MFT provision had not been triggered because Arcom held a license before the Pico-Eagle agreement. In contrast, Eagle’s position was that the Pico-Arcom agreement had been terminated due to Arcom’s alleged failure to pay royalties in 1987 and that the revised licensing terms in 1988 triggered the MFT provision. The trial court agreed that Eagle was entitled to a paid-up license on the same terms as Arcom and entered partial summary judgment in Eagle’s favor. Pico appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 779,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 779,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Intellectual Property

Key Terms