From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartford National Bank Tr. Co. v. E.F. Drew

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 9, 1961
290 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1961)

Opinion

Nos. 13484, 13485.

Argued April 21, 1961.

Decided May 9, 1961.

Januar D. Bove, Jr., Wilmington, Del. (Connolly, Bove Lodge, by Arthur G. Connolly, Wilmington, Del., on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

James M. Tunnell, Jr., Wilmington, Del. (Ernest S. Wilson, Jr., Morris, Nichols, Arsht Tunnell, Wilmington, Del., William J. Barnes, Stuart A. White, Roger R. Phillips, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant.

Before GOODRICH, KALODNER and STALEY, Circuit Judges.


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 will be affirmed.


Summaries of

Hartford National Bank Tr. Co. v. E.F. Drew

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
May 9, 1961
290 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1961)
Case details for

Hartford National Bank Tr. Co. v. E.F. Drew

Case Details

Full title:HARTFORD NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Trustee, and Philips…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Date published: May 9, 1961

Citations

290 F.2d 589 (3d Cir. 1961)

Citing Cases

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp.

the basis laid down by this bill is general compensatory damages which the plaintiff in the suit sustains. Of…

W. L. Gore Associates, v. Carlisle Corp.

It seems unlikely that defendant, which expected to develop a product "about two months" after August, 1968,…