An action on a judgment obtained in a patent case is not itself
a suit upon a patent, and the Circuit Court, in the absence of
diverse citizenship, does not have jurisdiction thereof, and so
held in regard to an action against directors of an
insolvent corporation to make them personally responsible for a
judgment recovered in the United States Court of Appeals for
damages for infringing letters patent, nor in this case can the
complaint be construed as making such defendants joint tortfeasors
with the corporation in infringing the patent so as to confer
jurisdiction on the court.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case comes here on the single question of the jurisdiction
of the circuit court, certified from the court below. 172 F. 166.
The judge dismissed the complaint of his own motion, and the
defendants in error confine themselves to the suggestion that for
that reason the judgment should be reversed at the cost of the
plaintiff in error, concurring in the argument that the judgment
was wrong. As we are of opinion that the judgment was right, it
will be unnecessary to consider that point.
The suit is brought by a Connecticut corporation against
residents of Connecticut. We give an abridgment of the
complaint.
Page 217 U. S. 498
The plaintiff is the owner of a patent for fingernail clippers.
The defendants, during the time of the acts complained of, were
directors in control of another Connecticut corporation, the Little
River Manufacturing Company. This company infringed the patent, and
the plaintiff brought a suit in equity against it in the same
circuit court, which ended in a decree for an injunction, $12,871
damages, and $496.35 costs. The defendants voted to continue the
sale of the infringing clipper pending the suit, and also voted and
caused to be executed a bond of indemnity from their company to the
selling agent against liability for the sale. As directors and as
individuals, they authorized and brought about such sales, and they
directed the defense of the equity suit. In consequence of the
expenditures to the foregoing ends, their company became and is
insolvent, and the defendants knew that that would be the result of
a judgment against it, but did the acts alleged for the purpose of
increasing the value of their stock in the company, and of
receiving the profits and dividends that might be received from the
sale.
The plaintiff's argument is that the defendants and their
corporation were joint tortfeasors, and that this is a suit against
the defendants for their part in infringing its patent, the
judgment against their co-trespasser not having been satisfied. It
is unnecessary to speculate whether this is an afterthought or
whether the complaint was framed with intentional ambiguity, so
that if one cause of action failed, another might be extracted from
the allegations, or what the explanation may be. But the present
interpretation is not the natural interpretation of the complaint.
The natural interpretation is that which was given to it by the
court below -- that it is an attempt to make the defendants
answerable for the judgment already obtained. There was no other
reason for alleging that judgment with such detail, while, on the
other hand, the patent now supposed to be the foundation of the
claim is not set forth. The judge was fully warranted in taking
this not to be a suit upon a patent. Indeed, it would seem
Page 217 U. S. 499
from his opinion that one of the grounds of jurisdiction urged
before him was that this is an action ancillary to the judgment in
the former suit, which, of course, is not, any more than
Stillman v. Combe, 197 U. S. 436; but
the argument recognized that the former judgment was the foundation
of the present case. Apart from that contention, there can be no
question that, as the judge below said, if the directors are under
obligations by Connecticut law to pay a judgment against their
corporation, that is not a matter that can be litigated between
citizens of the same state in the circuit court of the United
States. The only argument attempted here is that which we have
stated and have decided not to be open on the complaint.
Judgment affirmed.