The Laitram Corporation v. King Crab, Inc.

245 F. Supp. 1019, 147 U.S.P.Q. 136 (1965)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
T
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

The Laitram Corporation v. King Crab, Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Alaska
245 F. Supp. 1019, 147 U.S.P.Q. 136 (1965)

Facts

The Louisiana-based Laitram Corporation (plaintiff) held patents in machinery for the peeling and processing of shrimp. Laitram’s corporate predecessor had leased peeling machines to companies based in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska at double the rental rate charged in Louisiana but was later ordered by the Federal Trade Commission to cease price discrimination among lessees. Laitram brought suit against Alaska-based King Crab, Inc. (defendant), alleging that King Crab used peeling machines that infringed the patented machines. Among King Crab’s affirmative defenses were misuse of patents and violation of federal antitrust laws in connection with Laitram’s discriminatory rental rates. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska determined that Laitram was entitled to an injunction against King Crab. The court also held that the discriminatory rates charged by Laitram did not constitute a monopoly under the Sherman Act, though Laitram was disallowed from recovering damages for the period in which the rates had been in effect. King Crab moved for a new trial, arguing that Laitram had in fact effected a monopoly. This prompted the court to reconsider the antitrust issue.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hodge, J.)

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 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools 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 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 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

Antitrust

Key Terms