This consolidated case involved patent infringement claims by Well Surveys, Inc. (WSI) against McCullough Tool Company regarding five patents for radioactivity well logging methods and apparatus used in the oil industry, along with McCullough's declaratory judgment action alleging patent invalidity, non-infringement, and misuse. The court found three WSI patents (Re. 23,226, No. 2,308,361, and No. 2,554,844) valid and infringed by McCullough, while declaring two others (Fearon No. 2,390,433 and Martin et al. No. 2,686,268) invalid as anticipated by prior art or lacking invention. It also ruled that WSI had misused its patents from 1940 until June 1, 1956, barring recovery for pre-1956 infringements, but had purged the misuse thereafter, allowing enforcement of valid patents against later infringements; additionally, McCullough was found to infringe two other patents held by Canadian inventors. The decisions rested on analysis of prior art, claim validity under patent law, evidence of commercial use and licensing practices, and the timing of any anticompetitive conduct.
Parkhill Truck Company sued to challenge an Interstate Commerce Commission order granting C & H Transportation Co. a certificate of public convenience and necessity to haul asbestos-cement pipe and conduit from a Johns-Manville plant in Texas to points in 22 states. The Commission had concluded that Parkhill lacked authority under its existing certificate to perform the service, allowing it to bypass consideration of whether Parkhill's existing service was adequate or would be prejudiced by the new certificate. The court held that this approach was erroneous because the Commission had prior knowledge of Parkhill's operations under its certificate and had not pursued enforcement action, so Parkhill's objections should have been evaluated on the assumption that it possessed the authority; the Commission instead made an unreviewable advisory interpretation of the certificate's scope. The court therefore set aside the order and remanded the matter for further proceedings that properly account for the statutory requirements under the National Transportation Policy.
The case involved six certificated common carriers authorized for 'oilfield' transportation who challenged an Interstate Commerce Commission order interpreting their certificates as limited to service for the natural gas and petroleum industry and denying their applications for broader authority to transport pipeline-related commodities for other industries. The carriers argued that the Mercer commodity description in their certificates unambiguously permitted such operations under clause (2) without industry limitation and that the Commission's action amounted to an improper revocation without required procedures. The court upheld the Commission's decision, holding that the certificates' scope was properly interpreted as restricted to the oil and gas industry based on the intent from the Mercer case, consistent administrative practice, and the need to read clause (2) in context with clause (1), constituting a permissible construction rather than a change or revocation of authority.
The case concerned whether World Publishing Company, publisher of the Tulsa Daily World and controlled by shareholder Eugene Lorton, owed an accumulated earnings tax under Section 102 of the Internal Revenue Code for 1944 on the theory that it retained profits to shield Lorton from surtax rather than distributing them as dividends. The court found that the company had committed to a major expansion program involving purchase of new presses and construction of a building to meet growing circulation needs and a joint printing arrangement with a competitor, and that its 1944 earnings were retained to fund those specific capital expenditures. It concluded that the accumulation did not exceed the reasonable needs of the business and, alternatively, that the retention was not motivated by a purpose to avoid shareholder surtax. The court therefore held that the deficiency assessment was improper and entered judgment for the company.
This case involved claims by Kobe, Inc. and Alta Vista Hydraulic Company against Dempsey Pump Co. and related defendants for infringement of several patents on hydraulic pumping mechanisms used in oil wells, along with a claim of unfair competition. The court found that certain patent claims were valid and infringed while others were invalid, and it rejected the unfair competition claim for lack of evidence. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had misused their patents to maintain an unlawful monopoly in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. As a result, the plaintiffs were barred from recovering on their infringement claims or enforcing the patents until the monopoly effects were dissipated, and the defendants prevailed on their antitrust counterclaims. The court awarded the defendants treble damages and attorneys' fees based on the antitrust violations.
