Philp Et Al v. Nock
| Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
| Citation | 17 Wall. 460,21 L.Ed. 679,84 U.S. 460 |
| Parties | PHILP ET AL. v. NOCK |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Nock brought an action in the court below against Philp and others to recover damages for the infringement of a patent granted to him by the United States for an improvement touching the lids of inkstands and the hinge whereby such lids are attached. The case came on to be tried in March, 1870, and therefore while the Patent Act of July 4th, 1836,1 which in suits against infringers gives to patentees 'the actual damages sustained' by them, was in force; a similar provision, however, being made in the subsequent Patent Act of July 8th, 1870.2 The bill of exceptions showed that the plaintiff gave in evidence that during the term of the patent 'the defendants had sold inkstands having hinges that were infringements of the plaintiff's patent, to the number of seventy-five dozen, and that the royalty which the plaintiff received for the use of his patent was at the rate of $2 per gross.' The testimony being closed, the court instructed the jury as follows:
'If the jury shall find a verdict for the plaintiff under the foregoing instructions, they will award him such sum as they shall find to be required to remunerate him for the loss sustained by the wrongful act of the defendants, and to reimburse him for all such expenditures as have been necessarily incurred by him in order to establish his right.'
To this instruction the defendant excepted.
A verdict and judgment having been given for the plaintiff in the sum of $500 the defendants brought the case here.
Mr. R. D. Mussey, for the plaintiff in error:
All the injury proved was that the defendants withheld royalty to the amount of $12.50. There was no evidence of any 'expenditure' by Nock, and the instruction had no foundation in the evidence. Its inevitable effect upon the minds of the jury was to lead them to believe they might lump counsel fees, and such other expenditures as they inferred, and out of them make a total. The jury followed this evident lead of the court, and returned a verdict for forty times the amount proven.
Mr. G. W. Paschall, contra:
The bill of exceptions does not show all the evidence in the case, but it may be gathered that the plaintiff below proved that the defendants had infringed his right by selling seventy-five dozen inkstands. What further facts he proved is not stated.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maier Brewing Company v. Fleischmann Distilling Corp.
...43 (damages under injunction bond); Flanders v. Tweed, 1872, 82 U.S.(15 Wall.) 450, 452-453, 21 L.Ed. 203 (trover); Philp v. Nock, 1873, 84 U.S.(17 Wall.) 460, 21 L.Ed. 679 (patent infringement); Stewart v. Sonneborn, 1878, 98 U.S. 187, 197, 25 L.Ed. 116 (malicious prosecution). See also: M......
-
Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse No. 1 Bar-B-Que Restaurant, BAR-B-QUE
...in pari materia with section 35 of the Lanham Act, is similar. Under a rule dating from the nineteenth century, see Philp v. Nock, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 460, 21 L.Ed. 679 (1873); Teese v. Huntingdon, 64 U.S. (23 How.) 2, 8-9, 16 L.Ed. 479 (1860), recovery of attorneys' fees was flatly unavaila......
-
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.
...of law.' The question is not what speculatively he may have lost, but what actually he did lose * * *" See, also, Philp v. Nock 17 Wall. 460, 84 U.S. 460 21 L.Ed. 679 (1873); Palmer v. Connecticut Railroad Railway and Lighting Co., 311 U.S. 544 61 S.Ct. 379, 85 L.Ed. 336 (1941); Power Speci......
-
Tektronix, Inc. v. United States
...been proved as indicative of the value of what was taken, and therefore as affording a basis for measuring the damages. Philip v. Nock, 17 Wall. 460, 462 21 L.Ed. 679; Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64, 70 23 L.Ed. 802, 805; Clark v. Wooster, 119 U.S. 322, 326 7 S.Ct. 217, 30 L.Ed. 392, 393;......