Philp v. Nock
Cases that cite this one
44 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)
- Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1967)
- United States v. United States Steel Corporation (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama 1973)
- Yablonski v. United Mine Workers (District Court, District of Columbia 1970)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 1965)
- United States National Bank v. Fabri-Valve Co. (9th Cir. 1956)
- Faulkner v. Gibbs (9th Cir. 1952)
- Royer v. Shultz Belting Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri 1891)
- Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as Amended. in Re Franklyn C. NOFZIGER, Mark A. Bragg (D.C. Cir. 1992)
- Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Leydig, Voit & Mayer (Ill. App. Ct. 1990)
- Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse No. 1 Bar-B-Que Restaurant (D.C. Cir. 1985)
- Rohm & Haas Company v. Crystal Chemical Company and Joe C. Eller (Fed. Cir. 1984)
- Monolith Portland Midwest Company, a Nevada Corporation v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation (9th Cir. 1969)
- Maier Brewing Company, a Corp. v. The Fleischmann Distilling Corp., Maier Brewing Company, a Corp. v. James Buchanan & Co., Ltd. (9th Cir. 1966)
- Misani v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1964)
- Elrick Rim Co. v. Cheek (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1961)
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. Tompkins (5th Cir. 1941)
- Philadelphia Rubber Works Co. v. United States Rubber Reclaiming Works (District Court, W.D. New York 1920)
- De Laski & Thropp Circular Woven Tire Co. v. Empire Rubber & Tire Co. (District Court, D. New Jersey 1916)
- Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Fox Typewriter Co. (6th Cir. 1915)
- McSherry Mfg. Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. (6th Cir. 1908)
- Brown v. Lanyon (8th Cir. 1906)
- Westinghouse v. New York Air Brake Co. (2d Cir. 1905)
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
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.