Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
575 F.2d 1152 (1978)
Panduit (plaintiff) sued Stahlin (defendant) in 1964 for infringement of the ‘301 patent, which claimed wiring for ductwork systems. In 1969, the patent was found valid and infringed, and enjoined Stahlin from further infringement, a decision upheld on appeal. Later, Stahlin was held in contempt for manufacturing an imitation of a product it had been enjoined from making, which was also affirmed after an appeal. In 1971, the District Court appointed a special master to determine damages, and later the Court affirmed the master’s recommendations, which gave Panduit a 2.5% gross sale price royalty, a determination Panduit appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Markey, C.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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 171,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.