Russell v. Place
94 U.S. 606 (1876)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a judgment in a prior suit to act as an estoppel in a subsequent suit between the same parties, it must be certain from the record or extrinsic evidence that the precise question at issue was actually and necessarily litigated and determined in the first action.
Facts:
- The complainant held a patent for an 'improvement in the preparation of leather.'
- The patent was surrendered and reissued with an amended specification.
- The reissued patent contained two distinct claims: one for the general use of 'fat liquor' in treating leather, and another for a specific process of treating bark-tanned lamb or sheep skin.
- Sometime after a prior legal action between the parties, the defendants allegedly continued to manufacture, use, and sell the invention without a license from the complainant.
Procedural Posture:
- The complainant (patent holder) previously brought an action at law against the defendants in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York for patent infringement.
- In that prior action, the defendants pleaded the general issue and gave special notice of defenses including the patent's lack of novelty and its prior use by the public.
- A jury returned a verdict for the complainant for damages, upon which a judgment was entered.
- The complainant then filed the current bill in equity against the same defendants for subsequent acts of infringement, seeking an injunction and an accounting of profits.
- In the current suit, the defendants again raised defenses challenging the patent's validity.
- The complainant argued that the prior judgment estopped the defendants from raising these defenses.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prior judgment for patent infringement estop the defendant in a subsequent suit from contesting the patent's validity, when the record of the prior action does not specify which of the patent's several claims were found to be infringed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Field
No. A prior judgment does not estop a party in a subsequent suit unless it is certain that the precise question was raised and determined in the former suit. Here, the record of the first action is uncertain. The patent contained two claims, and the jury's general verdict for infringement did not specify which claim was infringed. Because the verdict could have been based on one claim without deciding the validity of the other, the prior judgment is not conclusive on the patent's overall validity. To operate as an estoppel, the record must show that the matter was necessarily determined, or extrinsic evidence must be presented to remove the uncertainty. Since no such evidence was offered, the defendants are not precluded from contesting the patent's validity in the present suit.
Dissenting - Justice Clifford
This opinion was noted but its reasoning was not provided in the text.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a critical element of the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), emphasizing the requirement of certainty. It establishes that a general verdict in a multi-issue or multi-claim case does not automatically preclude future litigation of all those issues. The ruling places the burden on the party asserting estoppel to prove that the specific issue was not only raised but actually and necessarily decided in the prior proceeding. This has significant implications for litigation strategy, encouraging parties to seek special verdicts or findings to ensure the preclusive effect of a favorable judgment in future disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Russell v. Place