ELECTRICAL FITTINGS CORP. ET AL.
v.
THOMAS & BETTS CO. ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A patent infringement suit resulted in a district court decree holding one claim valid but dismissing the infringement claim, which the respondent-patentee did not appeal. The Supreme Court held that although a party generally cannot appeal from a judgment in its favor, the appellants here could appeal to have the district court remove the unnecessary validity adjudication from the decree, since such an adjudication standing in the record could affect future litigation despite being immaterial to the disposition of the case. The Court reversed and remanded with instructions for the Circuit Court of Appeals to entertain the appeal and direct reformation of the decree.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. This was a suit in equity by the respondents for alleged infringement of a patent. . The District Court held claim 1 valid but not infringed and claim 2 invalid.1 Instead of dismissing the bill without more, it entered a decree adjudging claim 1 valid but dismissing the bill for failure to prove infringement. The respondents did not appeal, but filed in the Patent Office a disclaimer of claim 2. The petitioners appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals from so much of the decree as adjudicated claim 1 valid. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had been awarded all the relief to which they were entitled, the litigation having finally terminated in their favor.2 The court was of opinion that the decree would not bind the petitioners in subsequent suits on the issue of the validity of claim 1. We granted certiorari because of an alleged conflict of decision.3 A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of . findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.4 But here the decree itself purports to adjudge the validity of claim 1, and though the adjudication was immaterial to the disposition of the cause, it stands as an adjudication of one of the issues litigated. We think the petitioners were entitled to have this portion of the decree eliminated, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction,5 as we have held this court has,6 to entertain the appeal, not for the purpose of passing on the merits, but to direct the reformation of the decree. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to entertain the appeal and direct the District Court to reform its decree in accordance with the views herein expressed. Reversed. 23 F. Supp. 920. 100 F. 2d 403.
See Oliver-Sherwood Co. v. Patterson-Ballagh Corp., 95 F. 2d 70, 71. Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 292 U. S. 151, 176. See 28 U. S. C. § 225.
Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16; Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. Oklahoma Packing Co., 292 U. S. 386; William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, ante, p. 171.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (85 total)
-
Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank of Jackson v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (U.S. 1980)…the behest of the party who has prevailed on the merits, so long as that party retains a stake in the appeal satisfying the requirements of Art. III.6 An illustration of this principle in practice is Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U. S. 241 (1939). In that case, respondents sued petitioners for infringement of a patent. In such a suit, the defense may prevail either by successfully attacking the validity of the patent or by successfully defending the charge of infringement. In Electric…1 / 2
-
Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1943)…essed no opinion on those questions. The case is here on a petition for writ of certiorari which we granted because of the apparent misinterpretation by the Circuit Court of Appeals of our decision in Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U. S. 241. That case was tried only on bill and answer. The District Court adjudged a claim of a patent valid although it dismissed the bill for failure to prove infringement. We held that the finding of validity was immaterial to the disposition of the caus…
-
Partmar Corp. v. Paramount Pictures Theatres Corp., 347 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1954)…idence of conspiracy. Lindheimer v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 292 U. S. 151, 176; New York Telephone Co. v. Maltbie, 291 U. S. 645. The adverse finding was not included in the Court’s decree, as in Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas & Betts Co., 307 U. S. 241. Because of this inability to appeal, the finding cannot bind petitioner in a subsequent action between the parties based upon a different cause of action. See Restatement, Judgments, § 69 (2); Scott, Collateral Estoppel by Judgment, 56 Harv. L. Rev…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 85 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lindheimer v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 292 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1934)
- Okla. GAS & Elec. Co. v. Okla. Packing Co., 292 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1934)
- Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U.S. 16 (U.S. 1934)
- Oliver-Sherwood Co. v. Patterson-Ballagh Corp., 95 F.2d 70 (9th Cir. 1938)
- Thomas & Betts Co. v. Elec. Fittings Corp., 100 F.2d 403 (2d Cir. 1938)