Philp v. Nock

Supreme Court

Philp v. Nock

84 U.S. 460, 21 L. Ed. 679, 17 Wall. 460, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1385

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedNovember 17, 1873

StatusPublished

Cited by47 cases

This text of 84 U.S. 460 (Philp v. Nock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Philp v. Nock, 84 U.S. 460, 21 L. Ed. 679, 17 Wall. 460, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1385 (1873).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 U.S. 460, 21 L. Ed. 679, 17 Wall. 460, 1873 U.S. LEXIS 1385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/philp-v-nock-scotus-1873.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack