Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. E. F. Drew & Co.
This text of 290 F.2d 589 (Hartford National Bank & Trust Co. v. E. F. Drew & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The plaintiff sued the defendant for patent infringement. The trial court found the patent valid and infringed. This Court affirmed. 1956, 237 F.2d 594. The case then went back for the determination of damages. A master was appointed who heard the testimony and the master, in turn, reported to the district court. The district court entered a judgment that satisfied neither party. D.C. Del.1960, 188 F.Supp. 353, opinion amended, D.C.Del.1960, 188 F.Supp. 347. Plaintiff says it should have more. The defendant says it should be required to pay less. The case was very thoughtfully considered by the district court who knew both the facts and the law involved. The judge exercised his discretion in making the award he did and we are satisfied that what was done was well within the trial court’s discretion.
The judgment of the district court wifi be affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
290 F.2d 589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartford-national-bank-trust-co-v-e-f-drew-co-ca3-1961.