PHILP ET AL.
v.
NOCK
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.
In this patent infringement case, the Supreme Court established that damages recoverable from patent infringers must be limited to actual damages sustained by the plaintiff, which may be measured by royalties or reasonable compensation for injury, but cannot include counsel fees or be left to jury speculation. The Court reversed the judgment because the trial instruction to the jury was too broad and vague, potentially allowing the jury to award impermissible damages such as attorney's fees.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. justice SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.
The measure of the damages to’be recovered against infringers prescribed by the act of 1836 as well as by the act of 1870, is “the actual damages"sustained by the plaintiff'.” Where the plaintiff has sought his profit in the form of a royalty paid by his licensees, and there are no peculiar circumstances in the case, the amount to be recovered will be regulated by that standard. If that test cannot be applied, he will be entitled to an amount which will compensate him for the injury to which he has been subjectecLby the piracy. In arriving at their conclusion, the profit made by the defendant and that lost by the plaintiff' are among the elements which the jury may consider. Where the infringement is confined to a part of the thing sold, the recovery must be limited accordingly. It cannot be as if the entire thing were covered by the patent; or, where that is the case, as if the infringement were as large as the monopoly. Counsel fees cannot be included in the verdict. The plaintiff', must show his damages by evidence. They must not be left to conjecture by the jury. They must be,proved, and not guessed at. .
The instruction under consideration was too broad and too vague. The jury could have hardly doubted that it was their duty to allow the counsel fees paid or to be paid by the plaintiff', and perhaps other charges and expenditures equally inadmissible..
Judgment reversed, and the cause remanded to the court. belo-Sv, with directions to issue
A VENIRE DE N(*VO.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U.S. 714 (U.S. 1967)…anguage or legislative history to support the unusual construction. When a cause of action has been created by a statute which expressly provides the remedies for vindication of the cause, other remedies should not readily be implied. Philp v. Nock, 17 Wall. 460 (1873); Teese v. Huntingdon, 23 How. 2 (1860); cf. Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 363 (1852). Congress has overturned the specific consequence of Philp and Teese by expressly allowing recovery of attorney’s fees in p&tent cases16 and has selectively pr…
-
Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1888)…of the verdict. Acts of July 4, 1836, c. 357, § 14, 5 Stat. 123; July 8, 1870, c. 230, § 59, 16 Stat. 207; Rev. Stat, § 4919; Seymour v. McCormick, 16 How. 480, 489; New York v. Ransom, 23 How. 487; Suffolk Co. v. Hayden, 3 Wall. 315; Philp v. Nock, 17 Wall. 460; Packet Co. v. Sickles, 19 Wall. 611, 617; Burdell v. Denig, 92 U. S. 716. But upon a bill in -equity by the owner against infringers of a patent, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of gains and profits that the defendants have made by…
-
Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minn. Moline Plow Co., 235 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1915)…se of granting licenses to others to- deal in articles embodying the invention, the established royalty could have been proved as indicative of the value of what was taken, and therefore as affording a basis for measuring the damages. Philp v. Nock, 17 Wall. 460, 462; Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 70; Clark v. Wooster, 119 U. S. 322, 326; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 143. But, as the patent had been kept a close monopoly, there was no established royalty. In that situation it was permissible to…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence