Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 32 amendment of section 67 Year: 1936 Page 1 of about 82 results (1.700 seconds)

United States Vs. Safety Car Heating and Lighting Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

United States v. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. - 297 U.S. 88 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co., 297 U.S. 88 (1936) United States v. Safety Car Heating & Lighting Co. No. 75 Argued December 20, 1935 Decided January 6, 1936 * 297 U.S. 88 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus A patent owner began suit in 1912 to restrain infringements and for damages and profits. The litigation was pending on February 25, 1913, the effective date of the Sixteenth Amendment, and March 1, 1913, the effective date of the first statute enacted under it, and was continued for many years thereafter during which the patent owner obtained a decree finally sustaining the patent followed by a decree on accounting, of which a definite part was for profits received by the infringer before March 1, 1913, and the remainder for profits received thereafter, the claim for damages having been waived. Pending an appeal by the inf...

United States Vs. Esnault-pelterie

Court : US Supreme Court

United States v. Esnault-Pelterie - 299 U.S. 201 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Esnault-Pelterie, 299 U.S. 201 (1936) United States v. Esnault-Pelterie No. 41 Argued October 22, 1936 Decided December 7, 1936 299 U.S. 201 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. In a suit in the Court of Claims to recover damages under the Act of June 25, 1910, for alleged infringement of the plaintiff's patent, the validity of the patent and infringement of it are ultimate facts upon which depends the question of liability. P. 299 U. S. 205 . 2. Where, in such a suit, the Court of Claims makes findings of circumstantial facts, but fails to find specifically that the patent was valid or that it was infringed, its judgment for the plaintiff cannot be sustained unless, upon inspection of the findings of fact made, it is plain that they suffice to compel decision of those ultimate issues -- validity and infringement -- in favor of the plaintiff. P. 299 U. S. 206 . 3. The f...

Collector of Dacca Vs. Gholam Kuddus Choudhury and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1936Cal688

1. These five appeals are under Section 15, Letters Patent, and have arisen out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of a declaration, dated 17th December 1928, lands were acquired for a project named ' Landing Grounds for Aeroplanes at Dacca, in the village of Dhanmandal, Zillah Dacca.' The village is just outside the Municipal limits, and the lands acquired were near the other lands in the village purchased by private owners for residential purposes. The lands acquired had tenants on them, having rights of occupancy; their landlords had lakheraj right in the same. The Collector valued the tenants' interest in the lands acquired at Rs. 275 per bigha and the lakheraj right of the proprietors at twenty-five times the annual rent, and five years' purchase in addition for the loss of selami of the net annual profit for rent paid by the tenants to the proprietors; the total valuation of all interests in the lands acquired was about Rs. 450 per bigha. The tenants acce...

Wine Ry. Appliance Co. Vs. Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co. - 297 U.S. 387 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Wine Ry. Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Ry. Equipment Co., 297 U.S. 387 (1936) Wine Railway Appliance Co. v. Enterprise Railway Equipment Co. No. 356 Argued January 16, 1936 Decided March 2, 1936 297 U.S. 387 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 4900 R.S. does not mean that a patentee who has not made the patented article may not recover for infringements committed before he gave actual notice of his patent to the infringer. Pp. 297 U. S. 392 , 297 U. S. 397 . 77 F.2d 159 reversed. Certiorari, 296 U.S. 560, to review a decree reducing the recovery on an accounting for infringement of a patent. See also 25 F. 2d 236. Page 297 U. S. 391 MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1922, respondent equipment company sued the petitioner for infringing certain patents. April 25, 1923, petitioner appliance company, b...

Noble Vs. Oklahoma City

Court : US Supreme Court

Noble v. Oklahoma City - 297 U.S. 481 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Noble v. Oklahoma City, 297 U.S. 481 (1936) Noble v. Oklahoma City No. 335 Argued February 4, 5, 1936 Decided March 2, 1936 * 297 U.S. 481 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OKLAHOMA Syllabus 1. The Act of Congress of February 18, 1888, and the amending Act of February 13, 1889, authorizing a railroad company to locate and construct a railroad across a portion of the Indian Territory then still held in trust for the Creek Indians, but which was afterwards acquired from them by the United States and opened to settlement, did not make a grant in praesenti of a right of way, but granted only a franchise, and authorized a taking of land only upon compensation secured or made. Pp. 297 U. S. 489 , 297 U. S. 494 . 2. Subsequent related legislation examined, and found not to require a different conclusion. P. 297 U. S. 491 . 3. In view of the nature of the title of the Indians, an intention to grant or impose...

P.P.P. Chidambara Nadar Vs. C.P.A. Rama Nadar (Deceased) Pichaimani Al ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1937Mad385; (1937)1MLJ453

Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. The facts have been fully set forth in the order of referring Judges and need not be recapitulated. The short question is, whether when a revision petition is filed, it is permissible to hold under Article 182(2) of the Limitation Act, that the date of the order in revision made by the High Court, furnishes the starting point; in other words, whether the term 'appeal' is used in a restrictive sense so as to exclude revision petitions and the expression 'the Appellate Court' is to be confined to a Court exercising appellate, as opposed to, revisional powers. The only considered decision directly bearing on the point is Subramania Pillai v. Seethai Ammal (1911) 24 M.L.J. 457 : I.L.R. 36 Mad. 135, which places a restrictive interpretation upon the word 'appeal'; but as the learned Judges who have referred the question, rightly point out, that decision is inconsistent with the views expressed in numerous authoritative decisions as to the true meaning of the terms 'ap...

Binney Vs. Long

Court : US Supreme Court

Binney v. Long - 299 U.S. 280 (1936) U.S. Supreme Court Binney v. Long, 299 U.S. 280 (1936) Binney v. Long No. 77 Argued November 17, 1936 Decided December 14, 1936 299 U.S. 280 APPEAL FROM THE PROBATE COURT COUNTY OF NORFOLK, OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus 1. Massachusetts succession tax (Gen.Laws, Ter. Ed., c. 65, 1), on transfers made to take effect in possession and enjoyment after the donor's death held consistent with the contract clause of the Federal Constitution and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as applied upon the death, intestate, of a life tenant, to remainders then vesting but theretofore contingent, under a trust inter vivos antedating the taxing legislation. Coolidge v. Long, 282 U. S. 582 , distinguished. P. 299 U. S. 286 . Page 299 U. S. 281 2. In assessing a graduated succession tax, there is no constitutional objection to aggregating various interests passing and accruing to the same beneficiary from or on account of the death...

Palaniandi Pillai and anr. Vs. Rosappa Pillai

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 167Ind.Cas.458

Venkataramana Rao, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether an application for restitution made by the appellants for recovery of a sum of money deposited by them into Court for setting aside a sale under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is sustainable. The plaintiff respondent in this appeal filed a suit O.S. No. 440 of 1917 to recover a certain annuity from and cut of the property in the schedule annexed to the plaint filed by him. The properties were owned by the 3rd defendant from whom the 1st defendant purchased; and he in turn sold them to 2nd defendant. A decree was passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff directing among other things payment of the amount by sale of the properties. Tending the suit the said properties appear to have been purchased by the, appellants from the 2nd defendant. In consequence of the said decree in the above suit the properties were brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff decree-holder. The appellant made an app...

Rex Vs. John Mciver

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1936)70MLJ635

Cronish, J.1. Two points of law arising in the trial of John McIver for criminal breach of trust at the last Criminal Sessions have been reserved to us for decision under Clause 25 of the Letters Patent by the learned Chief Justice. They are (1) whether the plea of autrefois acquit was good in law, and (2) whether there could be a legal entrustment of the property having regard to the case put forward by the Crown. By ' case put forward by the Crown ', the learned Chief Justice has stated that he means the case alleged in the complaint.2. The learned Crown Prosecutor has taken an objection to our jurisdiction to entertain the reference. His objection proceeds as follows: - The High Court derives its jurisdiction to decide the question of law referred from the order of reference; the referring Judge is only competent to refer questions which he can decide; and the Judge is only competent to decide such questions as are available for his decision. Applying these propositions to the point...

Emperor Vs. John Mciver

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1936Mad353

Cornish, J.1. Two points of law arising in the trial of John McIver for criminal breach of trust at the last criminal Sessions have been reserved to us for decision under Clause 25 of the Letters Patent by the learned Chief Justice. They are (1) whether the plea of autrefois acquit was good in law, and (2) whether there could be a legal entrustment of the property having regard to the case put forward by the Crown. By 'case put forward by the Crown,' the learned Chief Justice has stated that he means the case alleged in the complaint. The learned Crown Prosecutor has taken an objection to our jurisdiction to entertain the reference. His objection proceeds as follows: The High Court derives its jurisdiction to decide the question of law referred from the order of reference; the referring Judge is only competent to refer questions which he can decide; and the Judge is only competent to decide such questions as are available for his decision. Applying these propositions to the points rese...