Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagespatentcase law

Related Cases

Oiness v. Walgreen Co., 88 F.3d 1025, 65 USLW 2080, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1304
View Case »
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193, 125 S.Ct. 2372, 162 L.Ed.2d 160, 73 USLW 4468, 74 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5026, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6861, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 394
View Case »
Oiness v. Walgreen Co., 88 F.3d 1025, 65 USLW 2080, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1304
View Case »
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604, 75 USLW 4034, 2007-1 Trade Cases P 75,543, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 278, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 348, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 27
View Case »
Hogg v. Emerson, 47 U.S. 437, 6 How. 437, 1848 WL 6441, 12 L.Ed. 505
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Moore v. Marsh, 74 U.S. 515, 1868 WL 11114, 19 L.Ed. 37, 7 Wall. 515

Facts

Moore, a patentee, sued Marsh for patent infringement. Marsh claimed that Moore had assigned half of his patent rights after the infringement occurred. The court had to determine whether this assignment barred Moore from recovering damages for the infringement that took place before the assignment. The case revolved around the interpretation of the term 'interested' in the context of the Patent Act of 1836.

Issue

Whether a sale and assignment by a patentee of his patent right is a bar to an action by him to recover damages for an infringement committed before such sale and transfer.

Rule

Under the fourteenth section of the Patent Act of 1836, damages for patent infringement may be recovered by the original owner of the patent, even if they have assigned their rights, as long as the infringement occurred while they were the owner. The term 'interested' refers to the ownership status at the time of the infringement.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language and previous case law to conclude that the original patentee retains the right to sue for damages incurred during their ownership, despite any subsequent assignment of rights. The court emphasized that the assignment does not transfer the right to damages for infringements that occurred prior to the assignment.

Conclusion

The court reversed the lower court's judgment, allowing Moore to pursue damages for the infringement that occurred before he assigned part of his patent rights.

Who won?

Moore, the patentee, prevailed in this case because the court found that he retained the right to sue for damages incurred during his ownership of the patent, despite having assigned part of his rights. The court's reasoning emphasized that the assignment did not affect his right to recover damages for infringements that occurred prior to the assignment.

You must be