Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas

Elec. Fittings Corp. v. Thomas, 59 S. Ct. 860 (1939)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1939-05-22
Topic
general

holding that a party can seek reformation of a favorable decree that discusses issues immaterial to the final outcome | prevailing party in patent dispute entitled to appeal collateral ruling on the validity of a patent claim | prevailing party had standing to appeal where district court found no infringement, but improperly adjudged the patent valid | allowing successful defendants in patent infringement suit to appeal from declaration that the patent, though not infringed, was valid | allowing victorious defendants in patent infringement suit to appeal to eliminate from the decree the finding that the patent, though not infringed, was valid | vacating finding of patent validity because District Court had dismissed complaint on noninfringement grounds | prevailing party entitled to appeal when it had already received all the relief it was entitled to but feared that a ruling on an immaterial issue might later be the basis for collateral estoppel | allowing victorious defendants in patent infringement suit to appeal to eliminate from the decree the finding that the patent, though not infringed, was valid — a finding with direct and significant impact on the appellant | prevailing party entitled to appeal when it had already received all the relief it was entitled to but feared that a ruling on an immaterial issue might later be the basis for collateral estoppel | appeal by prevailing party proper because, after ruling there had been no patent infringement, district court erroneously ruled on validity of patent | appeal by prevailing party proper because, after ruling there had been no patent infringement, district court erroneously ruled on validity of patent | where decree dismissing patent suit for failure to prove infringement also judged patent claim valid, Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear appeal of validity by prevailing defendant | "A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor...." | “A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor....” | "[A] party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” | "A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree" | “A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” | distiguishable from the present case because it involves an equity decree | “A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree” | “A party may not appeal from a judg- ment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.” | judgment for defendant declaring patent valid, but not infringed | judgment for defendant declaring patent valid, but not infringed

Citator

Cited by
168 opinions
ELECTRICAL CORP.v. THOMAS CO.,307 U.S. 241(1939)
59 S.Ct. 860
ELECTRICAL FITTINGS CORP. ET AL.v. THOMAS BETTS CO. ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
No. 582.
Argued April 19, 1939.
Decided May 22, 1939.
A defendant in a patent suit is entitled to appeal from so much of a decree adjudging him not guilty of infringement as purports to adjudge the patent valid. P. 242.100 F.2d 403, reversed.
CERTIORARI,306 U.S. 624, to review the dismissal of an appeal
from a decree of the District Court,23 F. Supp. 920, in a suit
for alleged patent infringement.
Mr. Samuel E. Darby, Jr., with whomMr. Lloyd H. Crewswas on the brief, for petitioners.Mr. George Whitefield Betts, Jr., with whomMessrs. WilliamBohleberandFrancis H. Fassettwere on the brief, for respondents.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was a suit in equity by the respondents for alleged infringement of a patent. The District Court held claimPage 2421 valid but not infringed and claim 2 invalid.1Instead of dismissing the bill without more, it entered a decree adjudging claim 1 valid but dismissing the bill for failure to prove infringement.

The respondents did not appeal, but filed in the Patent Office a disclaimer of claim 2. The petitioners appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals from so much of the decree as adjudicated claim 1 valid. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had been awarded all the relief to which they were entitled, the litigation having finally terminated in their favor.2The court was of opinion that the decree would not bind the petitioners in subsequent suits on the issue of the validity of claim 1.

We granted certiorari because of an alleged conflict of decision.3A party may not appeal from a judgment or decree in his favor, for the purpose of obtaining a review of findings he deems erroneous which are not necessary to support the decree.4But here the decree itself purports to adjudge the validity of claim 1, and though the adjudication was immaterial to the disposition of the cause, it stands as an adjudication of one of the issues litigated. We think the petitioners were entitled to have this portion of the decree eliminated, and that the Circuit Court of Appeals had jurisdiction,5as we have held this court has,6to entertain the appeal, not for the purpose of passing on the merits, but to direct the reformation of the decree.Page 243

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to entertain the appeal and direct the District Court to reform its decree in accordance with the views herein expressed.Reversed.
  1. Page 24223 F. Supp. 920. ↩
  2. Page 242100 F.2d 403. ↩
  3. Page 242 SeeOliver-Sherwood Co. v.Patterson-Ballagh Corp.,95 F.2d 70,71. ↩
  4. Page 242Lindheimerv.Illinois Bell Tel. Co.,292 U.S. 151,176. ↩
  5. Page 242 See 28 U.S.C. § 225. ↩
  6. Page 242Gullyv.Interstate Natural Gas Co.,292 U.S. 16;OklahomaGas Electric Co. v.Oklahoma Packing Co.,292 U.S. 386;William Jameson Co. v.Morgenthau, ante, p. 171. ↩