COCHRANE
v.
DEENER
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 case, the Supreme Court rejected a motion to vacate its decree based on allegations of collusion between the parties, finding insufficient evidence that the appellants had engaged in improper arrangements. However, the Court noted that the appellees' defense had been presented ineffectively during oral argument and suggested that third parties with interests affected by the decision on the Cochrane patents should not be precluded from raising the patent questions again in future litigation.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court.
After a careful examination of the evidence adduced on the motion to vacate the decree in this-Case, we see no ground to believe that the appellants are chargeable with any collusion with the appellees in reference to the argument of the appeal. On the contrary, the weight of the evidence is, that they repelled any arrangement or proposition which might look to that end. Whilst wé would not hesitate to set aside a decree collusively obtained, the proof ought to be very clear to induce us to do this at the instance of strangers to the suit, though incidentally affected by the decision of the questions involved.
At the same time, as the decision in this case is made the basis of applications for injunctions against third'parties in the Circuit Court, it is right that we should say, that, in.the argument of the appeal before us,’the case on the part of the appellees was, as it seemed to us, very imperfectly presented; and the evidence laid before us on this motion demonstrates the fact that the appellees, in consequence of the conditional-arrangement with the appellants, which they secured before the argument was had, or for some other cause, omitted to prosecute their defence with that degree-of zeal and efficiency which the importance of the case would otherwise have demanded. The result was, that the labor of the court, and its liability to overlook points of weight and importance, were greatly increased. As the case -was presented to us, we see no cause for changing our views. But, under the circumstances, we think that third parties, who had no opportunity of being heard, and whose interests as opposed to the Cochrane patents are very important, should not be concluded from having a further hearing upon them whenever a future case may be presented for our consideration. Motion denied. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1945)…in domiciliary intent. Merely adding the phrase as qualifying adjective does not raise an issue of fraud. For this reason, founded in the state of the record, the Court eschews grounding the decision upon fraud or collusion. Cf. Cochrane v. Deener, 95 U. S. 355; United States v. Maxwell Land-Grant Co., 121 U. S. 325, 381; United States v. San Jacinto Tin [*251] Co., 125 U. S. 273, 300; Lalone v. United States, 164 U. S. 255; United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 224. See 9 Wigmore, Evidence (3…
-
Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 78 F.2d 312 (4th Cir. 1935)…patent; and it is perfectly well settled that [*316] a device which embodies the principles of a basic patent as well as one for an improvement infringes both. The rule was thus stated by Mr. Justice Bradley in Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U. S. 780, 787, 24 L. Ed. 514: “One invention may include within it many others, and each and all may be valid at the same time. This only consequence follows, that each inventor.is precluded from using inventions made and patented prior to his own, except by license from the ow…
-
Swanson v. Torry, 25 F.2d 835 (4th Cir. 1928)…ampton Roads to the West Indies, and R. S. § 4511 (U. S. C. tit. 46, § 564 [46 USCA § 564; Comp. St. § 8300]) is not applicable to vessels engaged in trade between the United States and the West Indies. U. S. v. The Grace Lothrop, 95 U. S. 527, 532, 24 L. Ed. 514; The Mermaid (C. C. A. 9th) 115 F. 13; Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Schmidt, 241 U. S. 245, 36 S. Ct. 581, 60 L. Ed. 982. Libelants were engaged in a foreign voyage, and were under contract to continue to the West Indies and return. The authorities on…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780 (U.S. 1876)