Opinion ID: 291382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 4 In these cases, Day-Glo Color Corporation, et al., (hereinafter Switzer) appeal, and Locklin and Brandt (hereinafter Radiant) cross appeal, from the district court's judgment. We affirm. HISTORY 5 The parties compete in the daylight fluorescent materials market. The two types of products involved are liquid colors (variously known as silk screen colors, wet colors, paint, and ink) and paper coated with fluorescent colors. 6 On 20 October 1948 Switzer began its United States licensing program, the first successful step in the commercial exploitation of patent rights, culminating fifteen years of preparatory work. Radiant, after two years of preparation, entered the business on 1 January 1949. 7 On 5 June 1952 Switzer began this case in the district court as a patent infringement suit against sixteen of Radiant's customers, including the Chicago Cardboard Company. Seven months later Radiant was allowed to intervene as a party defendant and on 19 February 1954, after this court reversed the district court's denial of leave, 1 filed an anti-trust counterclaim charging violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and 14. 8 Several years later Switzer encountered rough going in its similar patent infringement suit against another Radiant customer in Ohio. The Ohio suit was dismissed for failure to join indispensable parties, co-owners of the patent in issue. 2 The court below gave Switzer the same treatment in the Illinois suit and we affirmed. Switzer Bros., Inc. v. Chicago Cardboard Co., 252 F.2d 407 (7th Cir. 1958). 9 The cause now before us then went to trial on Radiant's amended counterclaim and Switzer's counterclaim against Radiant, culminating in the 12 August 1960 judgment that Switzer, without malice or bad faith, violated the anti-trust laws. Switzer's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence. We affirmed. 3 The district court, on 14 June 1962, referred the case to a special master to report on damages as enumerated in the findings, 4 costs expended, and the amount of reasonable attorney fees. 10 The master began hearing evidence on 31 March 1964. Subsequently Radiant was rebuffed by the district court in its effort to file a supplemental counterclaim on the ground that the issues sought to be raised had been litigated elsewhere. We affirmed the district court's denial of leave to file the supplemental counterclaim. 5 11 Six years after the reference, during which time forty-three days were spent in presenting evidence and argument, the master filed his report of over two hundred and thirty-one printed pages, based upon nine thousand pages of documents and testimony concluding that Radiant was damaged in the amount of $1,145,378.73. 6 Over objection, the district court entered judgment for that amount. The parties, for the fifth time, appeal here.