SHAWKEE MANUFACTURING CO. ET AL. v. HARTFORD-EMPIRE CO.
No. 423
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 9, 10, 1944. Decided May 15, 1944.
322 U.S. 271
I shоuld reverse the order of the Circuit Court of Appeals with directions to permit the filing of the bill in thе District Court.
MR. JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER join in this opinion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE agrees with the result suggested in this dissent.
Mr. Francis W. Cole, with whom Messrs. Walter J. Blenko, Edgar J. Goodrich, and James M. Carlisle were on the brief, for respondent.
Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Shea, and Messrs. Robert L. Stern and Melvin Richter filed a brief on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Here as in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., ante, p. 238, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has declined to set aside judgments entered at a prior term. 137 F. 2d 764. Both this case and the Hazel-Atlas case involve thе validity of judgments obtained by Hartford-Empire adjudicating infringement of the “gob feeding” patent No. 1,655,391 оwned by Hartford. In the Hazel-Atlas case, supra, we have held Hartford‘s proven frauds in connection with obtaining and enforcing that patent were of such nature that the decree of infringement against Hazel-Atlas should be set aside, and have directed that appropriate orders be entered to accomplish that purpose. Nevertheless, it is argued that the decrees rendered against Shawkee and others should be allowed to stand because of certain differеnces between their situation and that of Hazel-Atlas. These are the differentiating facts:
Hartford‘s infringement suit against Shawkee and the other petitioners was not begun until 1933 after the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals the previous year holding Hartford‘s “gob feeding” patent valid and
None of these facts, we think, should deprive Shawkee and the others of relief against Hartford‘s frаudulent conduct. To obtain its judgment against them, Hartford successfully used the judgment against Hazel-Atlas withоut disclosing its previous misconduct. Keystone Driller Co. v. Excavator Co., 290 U. S. 240, 246-247. Hartford can derive no aid from the fact that Shawkee rеported to the Circuit Court its belief as to the deceptive authorship of the Clarke article. With that charge on the record, honest dealing with the Court required that Hartford should make a full disclosure of its fraudulent conspiracy. Its failure to do so under these circumstancеs aggravated the previous deception it had practiced on the Patent Office and the courts.
The prayer for relief of Shawkee and the others was that the court аdjudge that Hartford did not come into court with clean hands, and that they be fully freed from further obligаtions under the judgments against them. This relief should be granted. They further prayed that a master be aрpointed by the Circuit Court of Appeals to render an accounting of costs incurred in these and former proceedings, moneys paid by them to Hartford pursuant to the
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed. The cause is remanded to it with directions to set aside its 1934 judgment, recall the mandate, and dismiss the appeal; and issue mandate to the District Court with directions to set aside its judgment finding Hartford‘s patent valid and infringed, deny Hartford all relief against infringement of this patent, and permit Shawkee and the others to bring such furthеr proceedings as may be appropriate in accordance with their prаyer for relief.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS:
For the reasons given in my dissent in Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., ante, p. 251, I think that the decree should be reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to the court below to grant the petitioners leave to file a bill of review in the District Court.
MR. JUSTICE REED and MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER join in this opinion.
The CHIEF JUSTICE agrees with the result suggested in this dissent.