Philp v. Nock
Philp Et Al. v. Nock
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
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 *463 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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(when the statute prescribes “actual damages sustained” the amount recoverable is “regulated by that standard”)
Cited by 46 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court5
- U.S. Courts of Appeals20
- Federal District Courts11
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- Historical Federal Courts6
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp.
- Faulkner v. Gibbs
- United States v. United States Steel Corporation
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.
- The United States National Bank of Portland, Oregon, Trustee, and Walter G. E. Smith v. Fabri-Valve Company of America, a Corporation, Fabri-Valve Company of America, a Corporation v. The United States National Bank of Portland, Oregon, Trustee, and Walter G. E. Smith
- Yablonski v. United Mine Workers
Most recent
- Novaplast Corporation v. Inplant, LLC
- Kove IO, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
- Trutek Corp. v. BlueWillow Biologics, Inc.
- Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp.
- In re Motion to Compel Compliance With Subpoena Directed to Department of Veteran Affairs
- Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as Amended. in Re Franklyn C. NOFZIGER, Mark A. Bragg
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.