Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1944 United States Supreme Court case

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), is a much cited 1944 decision of the United States Supreme Court dealing with fraud on the Patent Office. A widely quoted statement in the Court's opinion is: "The public welfare demands that the agencies of public justice be not so impotent that they must always be mute and helpless victims of deception and fraud." Although the fraud occurred in the late 1920s, the facts became public only much later in the Government's antitrust trial in _United States v. Hartford-Empire Co. _

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazel-Atlas_Glass_Co._v._Hartford-Empire_Co.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

The Hartford gob feeder fraudulently patented in this case (U.S. Pat. No. 1,655,391

In 1926 Hartford had a pending Peiler patent application on a "gob feeder" glass-making machine. The Patent Office confronted Hartford with "apparently insurmountable opposition." To help persuade the Office to grant the application, Hartford's patent attorney R.F. Hatch "ghost-wrote" a trade journal article for a union official, Clarke, praising the invention as a revolutionary advance, and paying him to sign it. Hartford's patent attorneys Brown and Dorsey brought the published article to the attention of the Patent Office. The Office then issued the patent (U.S. Patent No. 1,655,391), in 1928. Hartford then sued Hazel for infringing the patent. The district court dismissed the bill, however, on the ground that no infringement had been proved. The court considered the patent to be at best only a slight improvement in a well-developed art (automatic feeders for mechanical glass bottle blowing), accordingly held that the claims were not entitled to a broad construction and that, with the Peiler patent so construed, Hazel had not infringed.

Hartford appealed to the Third Circuit; its patent attorneys, including the one who "had played a part in getting the spurious article prepared for publication," for the first time focused the court's attention on the article. The court's opinion quoted copiously from the article and reversed the district court, holding the patent valid and infringed. In contrast to the district court, the Third Circuit considered the patent to be a pioneer (as Clarke maintained), so that the claims were entitled to a broad construction. Therefore, with the patent claims so construed, the Third Circuit held that Hazel infringed a valid patent.

During trial in the district court in 1929, Hazel had received hearsay information that both Clarke and one of Hartford's lawyers had, several years previously, admitted that a Hartford lawyer was the true author of the spurious publication. Hazel did not at that time attempt to verify the truth of the hearsay story of the article's authorship, but relied upon other defenses, which proved successful in the district court. After the opinion of the Third Circuit in 1932, quoting the spurious article and reversing the decree of the district court, Hazel hired private investigators for the purpose of verifying the hearsay by admissible evidence . One of the PIs interviewed Clarke twice. In each interview, Clarke insisted that he wrote the article, and would so swear if summoned to court. In the second interview, the investigator asked Clarke to sign a statement telling in detail how the article was prepared, and further asked to see Clarke's files. Clarke replied that he would not "stultify" himself by signing any "statement or affidavit ;" and that he would show the records to no one unless compelled by a subpoena. At the same time, he reinforced his claim of authorship by asserting that he had spent seven weeks in preparing the article. Unknown to Hazel, a Hartford representative had gone to visit Clarke. Hazel's PI reported failure, but Hartford's man reported "very successful results," that Hartford was in a "most satisfactory position" in the matter, and that Clarke had signed an affidavit for him stating that Clarke had "signed the article and released it for publication." Hazel then capitulated in the patent infringement litigation and settled with Hartford for $1 million, and the parties entered into a cross-licensing agreement. Hartford's representative then went back to Clarke, who asked for $10,000; they negotiated (Hartford initially said $$10,000 was too much) but Hartford eventually paid him the full $10,000. These facts came out during the Government's Hartford-Empire trial in 1941.

Renewed Third Circuit review

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazel-Atlas_Glass_Co._v._Hartford-Empire_Co.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Renewed Third Circuit review")
]

Hazel then filed in the Third Circuit a petition for leave to file a somewhat belated bill of review in the district court to set aside the 1932 judgment which that court entered against Hazel pursuant to the Third Circuit's mandate overturning the district court's judgment of non-infringement. Hazel contended that the Third Circuit's appellate judgment had been obtained by fraud. The Third Circuit decided that because the alleged fraud had been perpetrated on it, rather than on the district court, it should decide the case instead of having the district court consider a bill of review.

The Third Circuit considered the evidence of how Hartford's patent attorneys wrote the article for Clarke, had it published, and then presented it to the Patent Office. It concluded, however, that "sordid as is the story concerning the genesis of the Clarke article and the deceptive design and use of its spurious authorship, still it does not qualify as after-discovered evidence" in Hartford's infringement suit against Hazel. The court pointed to Hazel's knowledge of the hearsay during the trial in 1929. "Although then so informed, counsel for Hazel-Atlas deliberately chose not to go into the matter of the article's real authorship, fearing that if they should refer to the article (which was not in evidence), they might thereby call attention to the statements therein contained as to the increased production from gob feeders as compared with stream feeders, which could not be successfully refuted."

The Third Circuit also emphasized that although the authorship of the article had been falsified, it was not shown that its factual assertions were false. Therefore, the fraud was not "material." Accordingly, "In the situation shown, it is not possible for us to say that the Clarke article was so basic to this court's decision in the Hazel-Atlas case that, upon the showing of fraud in the article's authorship, we would be justified in setting aside the order[]."

The Third Circuit also held that it lacked power to set aside its 1932 of infringement and must dismiss the case:

[This court lost] the only jurisdiction it ever had over the decrees in those cases, appropriate mandates duly issued and the terms at which the final orders on the appeals were entered expired long prior to the filing of the instant petitions without action having been taken to extend this court's grasp. In that situation there is nothing from which the jurisdiction of this court can be deemed to have been continued.

Ruling of Supreme Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazel-Atlas_Glass_Co._v._Hartford-Empire_Co.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Ruling of Supreme Court")
]

Justice Hugo Black delivered the opinion of the Court

Hazel sought further review in the Supreme Court, which reversed in a 5-4 opinion that Justice Hugo Black delivered for the Court. Four justices dissented on procedural grounds, believing that the case should have been decided in the district court rather than the court of appeals.

Majority opinion

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hazel-Atlas_Glass_Co._v._Hartford-Empire_Co.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Majority opinion")
]

The Court rejected each of the three reasons that the Third Circuit gave for denying the petition. First, the general rule that federal courts will not alter or set aside their judgments after the expiration of the term at which the judgments were finally entered is not inviolable. "From the beginning," Black wrote, citing the court's 1878 decision in _United States v. Throckmorton _, "there has existed alongside the term rule a rule of equity to the effect that, under certain circumstances, one of which is after-discovered fraud, relief will be granted against judgments regardless of the term of their entry" and "where the situation has required, the court has, in some manner, devitalized the judgment even though the term at which it was entered had long since passed away", relying on an 1891 decision, _Marshall v. Holmes _, which allowed an unconscionability exception from Throckmorton's rule generally barring equitable relief in cases of intrinsic fraud such as how Hartford characterized its actions. The Court condemned Hartford's conduct as "a deliberately planned and carefully executed scheme to defraud not only the Patent Office, but the Circuit Court of Appeals."

Next, because of public policy, the Court rejected the Third Circuit's condonation of Hartford's fraud on the grounds of Hazel's failure to exercise sufficient diligence:

This matter does not c

…