William Kessler v. George Eldred
| Citation | 27 S.Ct. 611,51 L.Ed. 1065,206 U.S. 285 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 196,196 |
| Parties | WILLIAM F. KESSLER v. GEORGE S. ELDRED |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This case comes to this court from the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit upon a certificate of that court of questions of law concerning which it desires instructions. Accompanying the certificate is a statement of facts. The statement of the facts and the certificate of the questions of law are as follows:
Kessler, a citizen of Indiana, prior to 1898, had built up an extensive business in the manufacture and sale of electric cigar lighters, and had customers throughout the United States. Eldred, a citizen of Illinois, and an inhabitant of the northern district, was the owner of patent No. 492,913, issued to Chambers on March 7, 1893, for an electric lamp lighter. Eldred was a competitor of Kessler's and manufactured a similar form of lighter (entirely dissimilar from that described in the Chambers patent), so that it was not a matter of much importance to customers which lighter they bought. In 1898 Eldred began a suit against Kessler in the district of Indiana for the infringement of the Chambers patent. The bill alleged that Kessler's manufacture and sale of the Kessler lighter infringed all the claims. The answer denied that Kessler's lighter infringed any of the Chambers claims. On final hearing the circuit court found for Kessler on the issue of noninfringe- ment and dismissed the bill. That decree was affirmed in 1900 by the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit. Eldred v. Kessler, 45 C. C. A. 454, 106 Fed. 509.
Subsequently, Eldred brought suit on the same patent in the northern district of New York against Kirkland, who was selling a similar lighter, but not of Kessler's make. The circuit court found for Kirkland on the issue of noninfringement and dismissed the bill. The circuit court of appeals for the second circuit reversed that decree and held the Kirkland lighter to be an infringement. Eldred v. Kirkland, 64 C. C. A. 588, 130 Fed. 342.
In June, 1904, Eldred filed a bill for infringement of the same patent in the Western district of New York against Breitwieser, user of Kessler lighters, which were identical with those held in Eldred v. Kessler, to be no infringement of the Chambers patent. Many of Kessler's customers were intimidated by the Breitwieser suit, so that they ceased to send in further orders for lighters, and refused to pay their accounts for lighters already sold and delivered to them. Kessler assumed the defense of the Breitwieser suit, and will be compelled, in the proper discharge of his duty to his customers, to assume the burden and expense of all suits which may be brought by Eldred against other customers. In this state of affairs Kessler, a citizen of Indiana, in July, 1904, filed a bill against Eldred in the circuit court for the northern district of Illinois, the state and district of Eldred's citizenship and residence, to enjoin Eldred from prosecuting any suit in any court of the United States against anyone for alleged infringement of the Chambers patent by purchase, use, or sale of any electric cigar lighter manufactured by Kessler and identical with the lighter in evidence before the circuit court for the district of Indiana and the circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit in the trial and adjudication of the suit of Eldred against Kessler. From an adverse decree by the circuit court Kessler perfected an appeal to this court.
Upon the foregoing facts the questions of law concerning which this court desires the instruction and advice of the Supreme Court are these:
First. Did the decree in Kessler's favor, rendered by the circuit court for the district of Indiana in the suit of Eldred against Kessler, have the effect of entitling Kessler to continue the business of manufacturing and selling throughout the United States the same lighter he had theretofore been manufacturing and selling, without molestation by Eldred, through the Chambers patent?
Second. Did the decree mentioned in the first question have the effect of making a suit by Eldred against any customer of Kessler's for alleged infringement of the Chambers patent by use or sale of Kessler's lighters a wrongful interference by Eldred with Kessler's business?
Third. Did Kessler's assumption of the defense of Eldred's suit against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beacon Theaters, Inc v. Westover
...406, 57 P. 209; California Grape Control Bd. v. California P. Corp., 4 Cal.App.2d 242, 244, 40 P.2d 846. Compare Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285, 27 S.Ct. 611, 51 L.Ed. 1065; International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 236, 39 S.Ct. 68, 71, 63 L.Ed. 211; Truax v. Raich, 23......
-
Hall v. Wright
...dissolved. See Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O Two Co., 1952, 342 U.S. 180, 183-186, 72 S.Ct. 219, 96 L.Ed. 200; Kessler v. Eldred, 1907, 206 U.S. 285, 289-290, 27 S.Ct. 611, 51 L.Ed. 1065; cf. United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 289-294, 1947, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884; Gompers v......
-
City of St. Louis v. United Rys. Co. of St. Louis
...as if they had been adjudicated and included in the verdict. Duchess v. Kingston's Case, 20 Blow. St. Tr. 544; Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U. S. 285, 27 Sup. Ct. 611, 51 L. Ed. 1065; K. C. Expo. Co. V. K. C., 174 Mo. 425, 74 S. W. 979; Turnverein v. Hagerman, 232 Mo. lac. cit. 703, 135 S. W. 42;......
-
American Federation of Labor v. Watson
...or threatened to break their existing closed-shop agreements or have refused to enter into such agreements.1 Cf. Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285, 27 S.Ct. 611, 51 L.Ed. 1065. So far as the complaint shows such persons have refused to recognize the applicability or validity of the Florida am......
-
Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied (January 2016)
...and claims that no court has ever resolved. The Federal Circuit grounded this unique legal doctrine in its reading of Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907), an anti-suit injunction case decided during "the heyday of the federal mutuality of estoppel rule." MGA, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 8......
-
Searching For Ways To Avoid Relitigating Noninfringing Products? The Kessler Doctrine Can Help
...Judge Hamilton followed the Federal Circuit's lead in confirming the viability of the Supreme Court's reasoning in Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907). Under Kessler, explained Judge Hamilton, a product once found not to infringe is "immunized" from future infringement suits brought by t......
-
Judge Albright Denies Amazon's And Target's Rule 12(c) Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Under The Kessler Doctrine
...previously litigated claims or issues against a defendant or its customers following a finding of non-infringement. Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285, 289-90 (1907). A patent infringement claim is precluded under the Kessler doctrine when (1) the defendant is an adjudged non-infringer and (2)......
-
Federal Circuit: Prior Dismissal Bars Customer Lawsuits
...infringement occurring prior to the final judgment in the Texas action, and that the Supreme Court's Kessler doctrine [Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907)], barred PersonalWeb's claims relating to S3 after the final On claim preclusion, the district court determined that: (i) the with-pr......
-
John C. Gatz
...The district court also ruled that select SimpleAir claims were barred under the Supreme Court’s decision in Kessler v. Eldred , 206 U.S. 285 (1907)—i.e., the so-called “ Kessler doctrine.” Regarding claim preclusion, the district court relied on the patent-in-suit being a continuation of a......