Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, 559
| Decision Date | 13 May 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 559,559 |
| Citation | 279 U.S. 388,73 L.Ed. 752,49 S.Ct. 356 |
| Parties | BECHER v. CONTOURE LABORATORIES, Inc., et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Floyd M. Sheffield and O. Ellery Edwards, both of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Charles S. Rosenschein, of New York City, for respondent.
In September, 1927, the respondents brought an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York in which they obtained a judgment that the defendant, the petitioner, was trustee ex maleficio for Oppenheimer of an invention and letters patent issued to the defendant; that the defendant deliver to the plaintiffs an assignment of the letters patent and give up instruments similar to the invention; that he be enjoined from using, manufacturing, selling, etc., such instruments, and from transferring any rights under the patent, and that he pay costs. The judg- ment was based on the facts alleged and found that Oppenheimer having made the invention in question employed Becher as a machinist to construct the invented machine and improvements made by Oppenheimer from time to time, and that Becher agreed to keep secret and confidential the information thus obtained and not to use it for the benefit of himself or of any other than Oppenheimer. It was found further, that while engaged in making instruments for Oppenheimer and after having learned from him all the facts, Becher without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and in violation of his agreement and of the confidential relation existing, applied for and obtained a patent of which Oppenheimer knew nothing until after it had been issued, and while Becher was still making for him the Oppenheimer machine.
The judgment was entered on July 5, 1928, and at about the same time the present suit was brought in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the parties are reversed. Becher sets up his patent, alleges infringement of it and prays an injunction. He also states the earlier proceedings in the State Court, and, although not in very distinct terms, seems to deny the jurisdiction of that Court inasmuch as the allegations of Oppenheimer if sustained, as they were, would show the Becher patent to be invalid; a question, it is said, for the Patent Office and the Court of the United States alone. An injunction was asked restraining the defendants from further prosecuting their suit in the State Court. A preliminary injunction was denied by the District Court and on appeal the decree was affirmed, and the appellant's counsel consenting if the Court decided that the State Court had jurisdiction, the bill was dismissed. 29 F.(2d) 31.
It is not denied that the jurisdiction of the Courts of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Plastic & Metal Fabricators, Inc. v. Roy
...A suit for wrongful disregard of a confidential relationship is a matter independent of the patent laws. 5 Becher v. Contoure Labs, 279 U.S. 388, 391, 49 S.Ct. 356, 73 L.Ed. 752. A primary issue to be determined in all such actions is whether there is a trade secret existing which is to be ......
-
Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
...barred by res judicata. Nash is supported by Justice Holmes' opinion for the Supreme Court in Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 279 U.S. 388, 391-92, 49 S.Ct. 356, 357-58, 73 L.Ed. 752 (1929), by academic authority, see Currie, Res Judicata: The Neglected Defense, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 317, ......
-
Hyde Corp. v. Huffines
...fact that he knew the plaintiffs' secrets, he must take the burden with the good.' In the later case of Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, 279 U.S. 388, 49 S.Ct. 356, 357, 73 L.Ed. 752, Mr. Justice Holmes in distinguishing between the patent and trade secret suits 'It is not denied that the j......
-
Nash County Bd. of Educ. v. Biltmore Co.
...subject matter jurisdiction" to the federal court in such cases.13 The Court sought to distinguish Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc., 279 U.S. 388, 49 S.Ct. 356, 73 L.Ed. 752 (1929), by declaring erroneously that the collateral estoppel upheld in that case applied only to "one of the co......