Cornely v. Marckwald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is clear that a payment of any sum in settlement of a claim for an alleged infringement cannot be taken as'a standard to measure the value of the improvements patented in determining the damages sustained by the owners of the patent in other cases of infringement. Many considerations other than the value of the improvements patented may induce the payment in such cases. The avoidance of tho risk and expense of litigation will always be a potential motive for a settlement. * * * Sales of licenses made at periods years apart-will not establish any rule on the subject, and determine the value of the patent. Like sales of ordinary goods, they must be common, —that is, of frequent occurrence, — to establish such a market price for the article that it may be assumed to express, with reference to all similar articles, their salable value at the place designated. In order that a royalty may bo accepted as a measure of damages against an infringer, who is a stranger to the license establishing it, it must be paid or secured before the infringement complained of. [None of these parties paid anything here until after the infringement of the patent.] It must' be paid by such a number of persons as to indicate a general acquiescence in its reasonableness, by those who have occasion to use the invention; and it must be uniform at the places where the licenses are issued. Tested by these conditions, the sums paid in the instances mentioned, upon which the master relied, cannot bo regard”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting & Refining Co.

2. ““When, however, a plaintiff: seeks to recover because he has been compelled to lower his prices to compete with an infringing defendant, he must show that his reduction in prices was due solely to the acts oí the defendant, or to what extent it was due to such acts. Cornely v. Marckwald, 131 U. S. 159 , 9 Sup. Ct. 744 , 33 L. Ed. 117 . There must be some data by which the actual damages may be calculated. New York City v. Ransom, 23 How. (U. S.) 487, 36 L. Ed. 512 ; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152 , 9 Sup. Ct. 463 , 32 L. Ed. 888 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McSherry Mfg. Co. v. Dowagiac Mfg. Co.

3. ““As to the question of an established license fee, the case is governed by the recent decision of this court in Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152 , [ 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 463 ,] where it was held that the payment of a sum in settlement of a claim for an alleged infringement of a patent ‘ cannot be taken as a standard to measure the value of the improvements patented, in'determining the damages sustained by the owner of the patent in other cases of infringement.’””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keyes v. Pueblo Smelting & Refining Co.