Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Philp v. Nock

Philp v. Nock, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 460 (1873)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1873-11-17
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • when the statute prescribes “actual damages sustained” the amount recoverable is “regulated by that standard”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Philp v. Nock. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
47 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Patent Law — Damages The measure of damages recoverable against infringers under the patent acts 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 no peculiar circumstances are present, the amount recovered is regulated by that royalty standard, and where that test cannot be applied the plaintiff is entitled to an amount that will compensate him for the injury caused by the piracy.
  2. Patent Law — Damages In arriving at the amount of damages for infringement, the profit made by the defendant and the profit lost by the plaintiff are among the elements the jury may consider.
  3. Patent Law — Infringement Where the infringement is confined to a part of the thing sold, the recovery must be limited accordingly and cannot be measured as though the entire thing were covered by the patent, or, where the entire thing is so covered, as though the infringement were as large as the monopoly.
  4. Patent Law — Damages Counsel fees paid or to be paid by the plaintiff cannot be included in the verdict for patent infringement.
  5. Patent Law — Damages The plaintiff must prove his damages by evidence; damages may not be left to conjecture by the jury but must be proved and not guessed at.
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.