Zenith Radio Corporation v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Corporations

395 U.S. 100 (1969)

Updated August 22, 2026

CorporationsAntitrustPatent MisusePersonal JurisdictionInjunctive Reliefin personam jurisdictionnonparty judgmentservice of process

Facts

Zenith manufactured radios and televisions and had previously licensed HRI's domestic patents under HRI's package license. After Zenith declined renewal, HRI sued for patent infringement, and Zenith counterclaimed that HRI had misused its patents and had conspired with Hazeltine and foreign patent pools in Canada, England, and Australia to block Zenith's export sales by refusing licenses for imported goods. Hazeltine, HRI's parent, was not named as a party to the counterclaim, was not served, and did not formally appear at trial, though HRI and Zenith had stipulated that for purposes of the litigation HRI and Hazeltine would be considered one company. The district court awarded treble damages and injunctions, but the court of appeals vacated the relief against Hazeltine and rejected most of the foreign-pool damages for lack of proof of injury during the statutory period.

Issue

Whether judgment and injunctive relief could be entered against Hazeltine despite its not being named or served; whether Zenith proved antitrust injury from the foreign patent pools sufficient for damages and injunctions; and whether conditioning a patent license on payment of royalties on products not using the patent constitutes patent misuse.

Rule

A person or corporation is not bound by an in personam judgment unless designated as a party or made a party by service of process, and a stipulation signed only by another entity is not an adequate substitute for jurisdiction. In antitrust cases, proof of some injury materially caused by the violation satisfies Clayton Act § 4 as to fact of damage, and § 16 permits injunctions upon a significant threat of injury from a current or impending violation. A patentee misuses a patent when it conditions the grant of a license on payment of royalties on products not covered by or not using the patented invention, though royalties measured by total sales are not misuse when adopted for the parties' mutual convenience rather than imposed through patent leverage.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeshore Optics, Inc., sued in federal court in Chicago, filed a counterclaim against Prairie Signal Labs, a subsidiary, alleging antitrust violations by Prairie and its parent, Northfield Holdings. The counterclaim named only Prairie as a counter-defendant, Northfield was never served, and Northfield did not appear; before trial, Prairie's lawyer signed a stipulation stating that Prairie and Northfield would be treated as one company for purposes of the litigation.

After a bench trial, may the court enter a money judgment against Northfield Holdings based on the stipulation alone?

Explanation. The majority held that a court may not enter an in personam judgment against a corporation that was neither named as a party nor served and did not formally appear. A stipulation signed only by another entity is not an adequate substitute for jurisdiction. Allegations that the parent acted with the subsidiary do not themselves make the parent a party.