Court Opinion

ID: 9602914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:01:31.277548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:28.262701
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J., Concurring.
Although the “Final Order” in the contempt proceedings recites in Paragraph IX that the “object and purpose of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff and granted by this order are remedial and for the benefit of the plaintiff and not for the purpose or by way of punishment of defendant for its wilful and knowing disobedience and violation of the . . . decree and injunction . . .,” nevertheless, in Paragraphs V and VI of its order wherein the court *177specifically directs that the generators in question be destroyed and prohibits further construction, maintenance and use of certain other generators then in the course of construction, the court expressly declares and reiterates that those particular portions of the order (set forth in Paragraphs V and VI) were made ‘ ‘ To correct and prevent further and future violations of the injunction and decree. ...” It is thus apparent that the provisions of Paragraph IX have particular reference to the compensatory monetary relief awarded Mr. Owens and do not preclude sustaining the directions contained in Paragraphs V and VI on other grounds.
The same thought was expressed by the court in its written memorandum opinion which preceded by three days the ‘ ‘ Final Order,” and in which after determining the damages to be awarded to plaintiff the court continues: ‘ ‘ The second important issue before the Court for determination is the nature of the corrective remedial relief to be granted. . . . The award of damages . . . will fairly and duly compensate plaintiff for the wrongful use and operation by defendant of his patented generators and for the unjust enrichment of the defendant. . . . Such an award, however, would not and should not allow defendant to secure the very benefits of the fraudulent ‘license’ which this Court cancelled in 1944 by the decree and injunction. The continuing use by the defendant of the Owens type generators is without authorization of this Court or of plaintiff and is a continuing violation of the decree and injunction. Under such circumstances there is an inherent power of a Court of equity, in a civil contempt proceeding such as this, to grant the necessary corrective remedial relief to compel compliance with the injunction and decree. This can be accomplished only by the destruction and demolition of the generators that have been constructed in violation of the decree and by stopping all new construction. ...” (Italics added.)
In the memorandum opinion the court also commented that “At the outset, it must be noted that the controversy is not simply one involving patent infringement, but concerns the violation and disobedience of a final court injunction. . . .” (Italics added.)
And in the court’s Interlocutory Order, which is expressly made a part of the Final Order in the contempt proceedings, it is noted that ‘ ‘ This proceeding is one to enforce the injunction and decree issued in the original trial of this action. ...”
*178Since in a sense it is true that any contempt proceeding seeking to enforce the terms of an injunction theretofore issued in favor of a private plaintiff is for plaintiff’s benefit, it appears to me that the court’s express recognition of that fact should not deprive it of the power which it was here exercising, of compelling compliance with the injunction, and to that end ordering destruction of generators which defendant had constructed and was using in direct, deliberate and flagrant disregard of the injunction. The court repeatedly declared that the purpose of ordering the destruction was to enforce the earlier injunction. I believe it had power to do so and this view is supported by Morton v. Superior Court (1884), 65 Cal. 496 [4 P.489].
For the reasons above stated I concur in the judgment and, generally, in the reasoning of Mr. Justice Carter.