Skip to main content

Radar Industries, Inc. v. Cleveland Die & Manufacturing Co.

Federal CircuitMarch 30, 2011No. 2010-1335Cited 15 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Lourie, Linn, Dyk
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Cleveland Die, holding that Radar granted Standard Products an implied license to manufacture the patented clevis links, which authorized Cleveland Die to produce them as Standard Products' supplier, defeating any infringement claim.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules in Favor of Manufacturing Company in Patent Dispute** This case involved a dispute between two companies over patent rights for a specific manufacturing part called clevis links. Radar Industries claimed that Cleveland Die & Manufacturing Company was illegally making parts that violated Radar's patent. Cleveland Die argued they had permission to make these parts because they were acting as a supplier for another company, Standard Products, which had already been given rights to manufacture the patented parts. The Federal Circuit Court decided in favor of Cleveland Die & Manufacturing Company. The court ruled that when Radar originally gave Standard Products permission to make the patented parts, this permission automatically extended to Cleveland Die as Standard Products' supplier. This meant Cleveland Die was legally allowed to manufacture the parts and wasn't violating any patent rights. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling is important for workers in manufacturing because it clarifies that employees at supplier companies can continue their work without fear of patent lawsuits when their company is legitimately producing parts for another business that has proper licensing rights. It provides job security for workers in the supply chain industry.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.