From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Electric Storage Battery Co. v. Shimadzu
United States Supreme Court
307 U.S. 5 (1939)
Genzo Shimadzu (plaintiff), a Japanese citizen and resident, sued Electric Storage (defendant) for infringement of three patents, two claiming methods and the third claiming an apparatus, all generally related to powder used to make a component of batteries. The three patents were issued between 1922 and 1926. Electric Storage began to use the patented apparatus in 1921. Shimadzu was able to prove at trial that he had invented the subject of the patents as early as 1919.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, J.)
What to do next…
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 552,000 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
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 552,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.