Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect. (en)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (en)
|
foaf:depiction
| |
dct:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
thumbnail
| |
JoinMajority
| |
LawsApplied
| |
OralArgument
| |
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| - Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., (en)
|
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (en)
|
Holding
| - That enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| - Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp. (en)
|
majority
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect. (en)
|
ArgueDateA
| |
ArgueDateB
| |
prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
page length (characters) of wiki page
| |
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
of | |
is Wikipage redirect
of | |
is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |