U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1919

Pollock v. Martin Gauge Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Decided October 7, 1919 · Baker, Evans

261 F. 201; 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1754

Counsel

Frank H. Drury, of Chicago, 111., for appellants., Edward Rector and Eynn A. Williams, both of Chicago, 111., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Robert Bosch, Llc v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2013)
McCulloch Motors Corp. v. Oregon Saw Chain Corp. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1965)
Collins v. Kraft (District Court, D. Maryland 1956)
Pyle Nat. Co. v. Lewin (7th Cir. 1937)
Standard Oil Co. v. Roxana Petroleum Corporation (District Court, S.D. Illinois 1925)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

EVANS, Circuit Judge.

[1] The opinion of the District Judge, appearing in 251 Fed. 295, fully and accurately describes the patent in suit, sets forth the issues in controversy in No. 2641, and the various contentions in support of them, and relieves us of the necessity of stating them. We are in accord with the views expressed in that opinion and agree with the conclusions there reached-. We therefore adopt the opinion of the District Court.

Patent No. 1,220,272 is valid and infringed.

The Martin Gauge Company has, likewise, appealed from the decree, assigning as error the court’s refusal to direct the assignment of patent No. 1,219,865 to it. We have examined the record with care, but fail to find evidence that would justify us in disturbing the finding of the District Court on this issue.

[2, 3] Reprehensible as was the conduct of the infringer, we find therein no basis for a decree directing an assignment of another patent. Other evidence, upon which assignment might be ordered, we do not find. The statute (section 9464, U. S. Comp. Stats. 1916) provides for the punishment of the willful violator. But whether damages in excess of the compensatory damages shall be awarded, as well as the amount thereof, must be determined by the District Court upon the accounting.

The decree is affirmed, appellants to pay the costs, in No. 2641. In 2694, the appellant, Martin Gauge Company, shall pay the costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.