Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.
- Decided
- June 17, 1988
- Docket
- 87-499
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,587 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- recognizing that the law-of-the-case doctrine expresses the practice of courts to refuse to reopen what has been decided but does not limit their power — Tel-Phonic Services, Inc., William Kirk, and John Bowen v. Tbs International, Inc. A/K/A Dy-Con, International, Inc. And the Dispatch Printing Company (1992)
- holding that once a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision continues to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the litigation — United States v. Boyce (2001)
- holding that even where defense is only question truly at issue, case raising federal patent law defense does not, for that reason alone, arise under patent law — Shaw v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (2001)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires that we decide a peculiar jurisdictional battle between the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Each court has adamantly disavowed jurisdiction over this case. Each has transferred the case to the other. And each insists that the other’s jurisdictional decision is “clearly wrong.” [*804] 798 F. 2d 1051, 1056-1057 (CA7 1986); 822 F. 2d 1544, 1551, n. 7 (CA Fed. 1987). The parties therefore have been forced to shuttle their appeal back and forth between Chicago and the District of Columbia in search of a hospitable forum, ultimately to have the merits decided, after two years, by a Court of Appeals that still insists it lacks jurisdiction to do so.
HH Respondent Colt Industries Operating Corp. is the leading manufacturer, seller, and marketer of M16 rifles and their parts and accessories. Colt’s dominant market position dates back to 1959, when it acquired a license for 16 patents to manufacture the M16’s precursor. Colt continued to develop the rifle, which the United States Army adopted as its standard assault rifle, and patented additional improvements. Through various devices, Colt has also maintained a shroud of secrecy around certain specifications essential to the mass production of interchangeable M16 parts. For example, Colt’s patents conceal many of the manufacturing specifications that might otherwise be revealed by its engineering drawings, and when Colt licenses others to manufacture M16 parts or hires employees with access to proprietary information, it contractually obligates them not to disclose specifications.
Statutes cited
- 15 U.S.C. § 15
- 15 U.S.C. § 26
- 15 U.S.C. § 1
- 35 U.S.C. § 112
- 28 U.S.C. § 1631
- 28 U.S.C. § 1295
- 28 U.S.C. § 1331
- 15 U.S.C. § 2
- 28 U.S.C. § 1406
- 28 U.S.C. § 1404
And 1 more section cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.