Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Ullman
| Decision Date | 27 September 1910 |
| Citation | 186 F. 174 |
| Parties | MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. ULLMAN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Richard N. Dyer and Leonard H. Dyer, for complainant.
Littlefield & Littlefield, for defendants.
I think the great weight of authority is to the effect that it is no defense to a suit for the infringement of a patent that the complainant and third parties have entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade, in violation of the Sherman anti-trust act (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200)). Strait v. National Harrow Co. (C.C.) 51 F. 819; Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger (C.C.) 107 F. 131; General Electric Co. v. Wise (C.C.) 119 F. 922; Independent Baking Powder Co. v. Boorman (C.C.) 130 F. 726; Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Laemmle (C.C.) 178 F. 104. Such a suit is not based on contract, but on tort, and, of course, the fact that a man has entered into some illegal contract does not authorize others to injure him with impunity.
The paragraph of the answer excepted to alleges that the suit is not brought in good faith to prevent infringement, but for the purpose of carrying out and making effective a contract, combination, and conspiracy between the complainant and the Eastman Kodak Company to monopolize the manufacture, sale, and use of moving pictures in violation of the Sherman act. But the bill is a simple bill for the infringement of a patent. Its purpose is apparent on its face. The mere assertion that it has some other purpose is not an allegation of fact, and is not admitted by the exception. If incidentally it effects some other result, that does not authorize infringement.
My conclusion is that the exception should be sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cage Bros. v. Whiteman
...to appropriate plaintiff's property to their own use and benefit with impunity. Harms v. Cohen, D.C., 279 F. 276; Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Ullman, C.C., 186 F. 174; Vitagraph, Inc., v. Grobaski, D.C., 46 F.2d 813; 41 C. J., p. 185, § By their 33rd and 34th assignments of error, defenda......
-
Schill v. Remington-Putnam Book Co.
... ... 248, 252 [45 S.Ct. 300], 69 ... L.Ed. 597, 599. Cf. Motion Picture Patents v. Ullman, ... C.C.S.D.N.Y., 1892, 186 F. 174; Haacke v ... ...
-
Harms v. Cohen
... ... while the motion picture and photoplays are being ... exhibited, such short excerpts of ... 590, 41 Sup.Ct. 209, 65 ... L.Ed. 425; Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Ullman ... (C.C.) 186 F. 174; Fraser v. Duffey et al ... (D.C.) ... ...
-
Vitagraph v. Grobaski
...fact that one has entered into some illegal contract does not authorize others to injure him with impunity. See Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Ullman et al. (C. C.) 186 F. 174; Harms v. Cohen (D. C.) 279 F. 276; Coca Cola Co. v. Gay-Ola Co. (C. C. A.) 200 F. 720; Columbia Pictures Corp. v. B......
-
Historical Development of the Misuse Doctrine
...aff’d , 198 U.S. 399 (1905); Johns-Pratt Co. v. Sachs Co., 176 F. 738, 739-40 (C.C.D. Conn. 1910 ); Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Ullman, 186 F. 174, 175 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1910); U.S. Fire Escape Counterbalance Co. v. Joseph Halsted Co., 195 F. 295 (N.D. Ill. 1912); Western Elec. Co. v. Wallers......