Handgards, Inc. v. Ethicon, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
601 F.2d 986, 202 U.S.P.Q. 342 (1979)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Handgards, Inc. (plaintiff) was a manufacturer of disposable plastic gloves. Ethicon, Inc. (defendant) manufactured surgical supplies, which included disposable plastic gloves. Ethicon acquired one patent on a glove-making process and another patent on a heat-sealed glove. Ethicon then used the process patent as the basis for an infringement action against Handgards in federal district court. The court found the patent invalid and ruled in favor of Handgards. Later, Handgards brought a separate action against Ethicon, asserting that Ethicon had initiated a series of bad-faith infringement actions in furtherance of a broader scheme to monopolize the market on disposable gloves in violation of the Sherman Act. The court instructed the jury that Ethicon could be held liable for antitrust violation upon proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the infringement actions had been brought in bad faith. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Handgards, and the court assessed treble damages against Ethicon for violation of the Sherman Act. Ethicon appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sneed, J.)
Concurrence (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
