- 272 -
proved. In response, Hartford filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit and specifically directed the
court's attention to the fraudulent article. Relying in part on
the fraudulent article, the Court of Appeals for Third Circuit
reversed the District Court and held that the patent had been
infringed. Nine years later, Hazel returned to the Court of
Appeals seeking relief on the ground that the Hartford article
was fraudulent. However, the Court of Appeals declined to set
aside the District Court decree on the grounds that: (1) the
fraud was not newly discovered; (2) the fraudulent article was
not the primary basis for its earlier decision, and (3) the Court
of Appeals lacked the power to set aside the District Court
decree because of the expiration of the term during which its
decision had been rendered.
Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the
Court of Appeals had equitable power to set aside the District
Court decree despite the fact that the decree was otherwise
final. See id. at 244-245. The Supreme Court explained its
holding as follows:
Every element of the fraud here disclosed demands
the exercise of the historic power of equity to set
aside fraudulently begotten judgments. This is not
simply a case of a judgment obtained with the aid of a
witness who, on the basis of after-discovered evidence,
is believed possibly to have been guilty of perjury.
Here, even if we consider nothing but Hartford's sworn
admissions, we find a deliberately planned and
carefully executed scheme to defraud not only the
Patent Office but the Circuit Court of Appeals. Cf.
Marshall v. Holmes, [141 U.S. 589 (1891]. Proof of the
scheme, and of its complete success up to date, is
conclusive. * * *
Page: Previous 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011