Productive Inventions v. Trico Products Corp.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 276,Docket 23461.,276 |
| Citation | 224 F.2d 678 |
| Parties | PRODUCTIVE INVENTIONS, Inc., a corporation, Appellant, v. TRICO PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Herbert A. Bergson and Daniel J. Freed, Washington, D. C. and David L. Landy, Buffalo, N. Y. (Bergson & Borkland, Washington, D. C. and Moot, Sprague, Marcy & Gulick, Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for appellant.
Raichle, Tucker & Moore, Buffalo, N. Y. (Frank G. Raichle and James O. Moore, Jr., Buffalo, N. Y., on the brief), for appellee.
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, CHASE, Circuit Judge, and RYAN, District Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and from the judgment entered thereon dismissing Count I of its complaint against defendant Trico Products Corporation (Trico) seeking treble damages for violation of Section 3 of the Clayton Act and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The District Judge having made the required finding of finality under Fed.Rule 54(b), 28 U.S. C.A., the appeal is properly before us.
Appellant is the patentee of certain patents on windshield wiper components for motor vehicles on which it granted an exclusive license to the Anderson Company ("Anco") to manufacture and sell under the patents. Appellant's sole interest in the patents is limited to its right to receive royalties on Anco's sales.
Appellee Trico is in competition with Anco in the manufacture and sale of windshield wipers and their components, and also engages in some experimental work and has an interest in certain patents on the devices it markets.
The count in the complaint with which we are concerned seeks treble damages alleging that appellant's royalties have been reduced by reason of Trico's selling its products upon condition that purchasers would not deal with Trico's competitors, including Anco. Judge Knight ruled that appellant had no standing to sue for treble damages because its loss was "beyond the limit of injuries cognizable under the anti-trust laws." We agree with this holding.
The limited question here presented is: Is a patentee who has granted to another an exclusive license for the term of the patent, upon a royalty basis, a "person * * * injured in his business or property" (within the meaning of Section 4 of the Clayton Act) so as to enable him to recover treble damages for loss of royalties on sales that might have been made by its licensee save for the anti-trust violations of defendant? We hold he is not.
Those harmed only incidentally by anti-trust violations have no standing to sue for treble damages; only those at whom the violation is directly aimed, or who have been directly harmed may recover. As stated by the Ninth Circuit in Conference of Studio Unions v. Loew's, Inc., 193 F.2d 51, at page 55:
"Recovery and damages under the anti-trust law is available to those who have been directly injured by the lessening of competition and withheld from those who seek the windfall of treble damages because of incidental harm."
Shareholders and officers of corporations as well as creditors and landlords have been held not to have standing to sue for treble damages. Loeb v. Eastern Kodak Co., 3 Cir., 183 F. 704; Gerli v. Silk...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shapiro v. General Motors Corp.
...as to grant royalties, or (2) plaintiffs would not accept less money for their invention. The court in Productive Inventions, Inc. v. Trico Products Corp., 224 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1955), considered the following Is a patentee who has granted to another an exclusive license for the term of the......
-
Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. v. A & A FIBERGLASS, INC.
...to pursue this cause of action. See Alexander v. Texas Co., 149 F.Supp. 37 (W.D.La.1957). See also Productive Inventions, Inc. v. Trico Products Corp., 224 F.2d 678 (2nd Cir. 1955). The defendant's failure to furnish a brief directed to its antitrust counterclaim further deprives the court ......
-
Blue Shield of Virginia v. Cready
...that focus on the "directness" of the injury, e.g., Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F. 704, 709 (CA3 1910); Productive Inventions, Inc. v. Trico Products Corp., 224 F.2d 678 (CA2 1955); Volasco Products Co. v. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co., 308 F.2d 383 (CA6 1962); on its foreseeability, e.g., In......
-
Calderone Enter. Corp. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit
...943, 89 S.Ct. 2014, 23 L.Ed.2d 461, rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 869, 90 S.Ct. 38, 24 L.Ed. 2d 125 (1969); Productive Inventions, Inc. v. Trico Products Corp., 224 F.2d 678 (2d Cir. 1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 936, 76 S.Ct. 301, 100 L.Ed. 818 (1956), and affirm the district court's dismissa......