Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.
1908 United States Supreme Court case
Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.[1]
Facts
Eastern Paper Bag brought an action to prevent its competitor Continental Paper Bag from using its patent for a "self-opening" paper bag. Continental Paper Bag alleged that Eastern Paper Bag was not using its patent but simply trying to suppress competition.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court rejected this argument by Continental Paper Bag, holding that it was the essence of the patent to exclude others without question of motive.
See also
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 210
Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945)
Further reading
Chin, Yee Wah (1997). "Unilateral Technology Suppression: Appropriate Antitrust and Patent Law Remedies" (PDF). Antitrust Law Journal.
The public source identifies “Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.” as 1908 United States Supreme Court case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Continental, Paper and Eastern.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.”, the useful work is to connect “1908 United States Supreme Court case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5165309. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1908, 1945 and 1997.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. primary sources, Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co. archive and Continental research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.