Triplett v. Lowell
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
In Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, the Supreme Court rejected Triplett’s rule that a patent holder could relitigate validity against a new defendant after a prior judgment of invalidity. The confirmed treatment is listed below; Triplett’s separate discussion of the patent disclaimer statute was not the subject of that overruling.
38 later cases cite Triplett v. Lowell; 38 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Triplett v. Lowell?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The Supreme Court overruled Triplett’s mutuality rule to allow an accused patent infringer to raise estoppel after the patent was previously held invalid.
Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Thus, we conclude that Triplett should be overruled to the extent it forecloses a plea of estoppel by one facing a charge of infringement of a patent that has once been declared invalid.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Triplett v. Lowell and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace