John Rellstab

This case was a patent infringement dispute in which Motor Player Corporation sued Piano Motors Corporation over its sales of a device called the Motora that infringed U.S. Patent No. 1,320,224 for a motor-driven suction apparatus used in player pianos. The court reviewed exceptions to the master's accounting report and determined that the defendant had realized no profits from the infringement after properly deducting all expenses, including interest on investment. It rejected an award of damages for lost sales because the evidence did not establish with reasonable certainty how many units the plaintiff would have sold absent the infringement. The court instead awarded damages measured by a reasonable royalty of $3.77 per infringing unit sold, totaling $7,671.95, and added $15,000 to account for uncovered litigation expenses and punitive considerations arising from the defendant's willful conduct, resulting in a total judgment of $27,210 plus interest and costs.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a patent infringement and unfair competition dispute between Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co., a maker of auto ignition systems, and Automotive Equipment Co., a seller of replacement parts for those systems. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant contributorily infringed two patents—one covering an igniter mechanism with a removable timer assembly (Wilcox & Cavanagh, No. 1,204,104) and another covering an electrical connector (Stahl & Cavanagh, No. 1,221,239)—while the defendant challenged the patents' validity, denied infringement, and raised counterclaims including violations of the Clayton Act. The court held the Wilcox & Cavanagh patent valid and infringed through sales of compatible parts, found no infringement of the Stahl & Cavanagh patent, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaims. It reasoned that the patents' combination claims reflected a novel, economical design for easy timer replacement without disturbing other components, that all elements were old but the overall assembly constituted a patentable advance, and that any potentially anticompetitive conduct by the plaintiff did not rise to the level of unclean hands barring equitable relief.

propertybusiness & regulatory