Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Merrill
Trenton Industries v. A. E. Peterson Manufacturing Co.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
John Adler created a high chair that was foldable and distributable, comparedto other high chairs because it contained a signature attachment item,which was publicly disclosed in previous patents. However, Adler did not create the attachment item. Adler sharedhis high chair with Haugh. Haugh gave a sample chair to Peterson, the owner of A. E. Peterson Manufacturing Company (“Defendant”). Haugh proposed to negotiate a royalty agreement with Peterson to permit Peterson’s manufacture of the chair. For two months, Peterson examined the chair. However, Peterson decided to return the chair to Haugh and decline to manufacture the chair.Subsequently,Peterson put a chair, which was similar to Alder’s chair, on the market, and did not reimburse Adler for using his chair’s design. Thereafter, Trenton Industries (“Plaintiff”), a company that Alder managed, received a patent for Adler’s chair. On the patent application, there was a combination-patent claim detailing the elements that present on the chair instead of the attributed that made the chair unique. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant alleging patent infringement and for compensation in quasi-contract for operating the chair before the issuance of the patent. Defendant asserted the defense that the patent was invalid, thus Defendant did not infringe on any rights, as Plaintiff founded his design on church chairs, which he believed he was free to use in good faith.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.