Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • T
  • Trio Process Corp. v. L. Goldstein’s S…Trio Process Corp. v. L. Goldstein’s Sons, Inc.
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Trio Process Corp. v. L. Goldstein’s Sons, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
612 F.2d 1353 (1980)


Trio Process Corporation (Trio) (plaintiff) owned a patent covering a process for removing insulation from copper wire. In 1960, Trio licensed the process for $20,000 and two furnaces necessary to practice the process for $15,000 to L. Goldstein’s Sons, Inc. (Goldstein) (defendant) . The licensing rate was equal to $2,600 per furnace year. Between 1962 and 1969, various buyers purchased licenses from Trio for between $19,500 and $25,000. In 1965, Goldstein contracted with a metal fabricator to construct a furnace modeled on the furnace purchased from Trio. Trio sued Goldstein for infringement. Goldstein contended that the patent was invalid. The court of appeals upheld the validity of the patent and concluded that Goldstein had infringed the patent. The case was remanded to the district court to compute damages. In determining the appropriate amount of damages, the court considered the $2,600-per furnace-year sum actually charged by Trio for licenses between 1960 and 1970. The court concluded that the rate did not represent an established royalty because Goldstein’s open infringement of the patent had unfairly depressed the market price of the license. On this basis, the district court increased the sum, setting damages at $7,800 per furnace year for the years prior to the validity determination by the court of appeals, and $15,000 per furnace year after the determination. Goldstein appealed. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that the district court erred in calculating two separate royalty rates and failed to properly explain the basis for the calculation. The case was remanded for a new damages determination, which again resulted in an appeal by Goldstein.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Rosenn, 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 449,000 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.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 449,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial