Russell v. Place
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FIELD |
| Citation | 24 L.Ed. 214,94 U.S. 606 |
| Parties | RUSSELL v. PLACE |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1876 |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
Mr. Horace E. Smith for the appellant.
Mr. T. L. Wakefield, contra.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit for an infringement of a patent to the complainant for an alleged new and useful improvement in the preparation of leather, and is similar in its general features to the suit of the complainant against Dodge, 93 U. S. 460. It is submitted upon substantially the same testimony, and presents,
Page 607
with one exception, the same questions for determination. That exception relates to the operation, as an estoppel against setting up the defences here made, of a judgment recovered by the complainant against the defendants in an action at law for the infringement of the patent.
The bill of complaint sets forth the invention claimed, the issue of a patent for the same, its surrender for alleged defective and insufficient description of the invention, its reissue with an amended specification, and the recovery of judgment against the defendants for amages in an action at law for a violation of the exclusive privileges secured by the patent.
The bill then alleges the subsequent manufacture, use, and sale by the defendants, without the license of the patentee, of the alleged invention and improvement, and prays that they may be decreed to account for the gains and profits thus acquired by them, and be enjoined from further infringement.
The answer admits the issue of the patent, its surrender and reissue, and, as a defence to this suit, sets up in substance the want of novelty in the invention, its use by the public for more than two years prior to the application for the patent, and that the reissue, so far as it differs from the original patent, is not for the same invention. The answer also admits the recovery by the complainant in the action at law of the judgment mentioned, but denies that the same issues were involved or tried in that action which are raised in this suit.
The action at law was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, in the ordinary form of such actions for infringement of the privileges secured by a patent. The defendants pleaded the general issue, and set up, by special notice under the act of Congress, the want of novelty in the invention, and its use by the public for more than two years prior to the application for a patent. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for damages, upon which the judgment mentioned was entered; and this judgment, it is now insisted, estops the defendants in this suit from insisting upon the want of novelty in the invention patented, and its prior use by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercoid Corporation v. Inv Co, MID-CONTINENT
...of which the finding or verdict was rendered.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 353, 24 L.Ed. 195. And see Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 24 L.Ed. 214. It was held in Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27, 36 S.Ct. 233, 60 L.Ed. 505, that the statutory liability in q......
-
Arenas v. United States, No. 12356.
...of which the finding or verdict was rendered.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra, 94 U.S. 353, 24 L.Ed. 195. And see Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 24 L.Ed. 214; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48, 18 S.Ct. 18, 27, 42 L.Ed. 355; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co., ......
-
Teutscher v. Woodson, No. 13-56411
...verdict on Teutscher's entire entitlement to front pay over the course of his remaining working years was “conclusive.” Russell v. Place , 94 U.S. 606, 608–09, 4 Otto 606, 24 L.Ed. 214 (1876). The district court's decision to then award an additional front pay remedy disregarded the jury's ......
-
Application of Szwarc, Patent Appeal No. 6462
...the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.\' Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra, 94 U.S. 353. And see Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606 24 L.Ed. 214; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48 18 S. Ct. 18, 42 L.Ed. 355; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co., ......
-
Mercoid Corporation v. Inv Co, MID-CONTINENT
...of which the finding or verdict was rendered.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 353, 24 L.Ed. 195. And see Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 24 L.Ed. 214. It was held in Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27, 36 S.Ct. 233, 60 L.Ed. 505, that the statutory liability in q......
-
Ohio-Sealy Mattress Mfg. Co. v. Sealy, Inc., OHIO-SEALY
...by itself and out of the context of the trial could not necessarily be said to have foreclosed any particular issue. See Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 608-09, 24 L.Ed. 214 (1877); 1B Moore's Federal Practice P 0.443(4) (1974). The amount of the verdict, however, makes it a mathematical cer......
-
Arenas v. United States, No. 12356.
...of which the finding or verdict was rendered.' Cromwell v. County of Sac, supra, 94 U.S. 353, 24 L.Ed. 195. And see Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 24 L.Ed. 214; Southern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1, 48, 18 S.Ct. 18, 27, 42 L.Ed. 355; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continent Inv. Co., ......
-
Putnam Resources v. Pateman, Nos. 91-1307
...favor on the counterclaim. Unlike the cases cited by Putnam which have found ambiguity in jury verdicts, see, e.g., Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 24 L.Ed. 214 (1876), there is no plausible theory here, legal or equitable, which could ground an assertion that the jury findings were ambiguou......