GARRETSON
v.
CLARK & ANOTHER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A patent holder for an improvement in mop-head clamping mechanisms sought damages for patent infringement but offered only the overall cost and selling price of the entire mop-head as evidence of damages, without apportioning profits or damages specifically to the patented feature. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's award of only nominal damages, holding that when a patent covers only an improvement to an existing device, the patentee must present reliable evidence separating the profits or damages attributable to the patented feature from those of the unpatented components, or demonstrate that the entire value of the product is legally attributable to the patented improvement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case the court below sustained the plaintiff’s patents, adjudged that the defendants were infringers, and directed a reference to a master, to ascertain and report the profits and gains made by the defendants. The master reported that no proof was presented to him that they had made any profit, or that the plaintiffs had suffered any damages. The court sustained the report, and the decree allowed the plaintiffs only nominal damages. From this decree the appeal is taken. Garretson v. Clark, 15 Blatchford, 70.
The patent was for an improvement in the construction of mop-heads, which may be described with sufficient accuracy as an improvement in the method of moving and securing in place the movable jaw or clamp of a jnop-head. With the exception of this mode of clamping, mop-heads like the plaintiff’s had béen in use time out of mind. Before the master, the plaintiff provéd the cost of his mop-heads, and the price at which they were sold,'and claimed the right to recover the difference as his damages. This rule was rejected; and, no other evidence of damages being offered, the master reported' as stated.
When a patent is for an improvement, and not for an entirely . new machine or contrivance, the patentee must show in what particulars his improvement has added to the usefulness of the machine or contrivance/ He must separate its results distinctly from those of the other parts, so that the benefits derived from it may be distinctly seen and appreciated. The rule on this head is aptly stated by Hr. Justice Blatchford in the court below : “ The patentee,” he says, “must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant’s profits and the patentee’s damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative; or he must show, by equally reliable and satisfactory evidence, that the profits and damages are to be calculated on the whole machine, for the reason that the entire value of the Avhole machine, as a marketable article, is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.”
The plaintiff complied with neither part of this rule. He produced no evidence to apportion the profits or damages between the improvement constituting the patented feature and the other features of the mop. His evidence went only to show the cost of the Avhole mop, and the price at which it Avas sold.
And of course it could not be pretended that the entire value of the mop-head was attributable to the feature patented. So the whole case ended, the rule was not followed, and the decree is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1888)…t’s profits. Act of July 8, 1870, c. 230, § 55, 16 Stat. 206; Rev. Stat. § 4921; Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U. S. 64, 69; Marsh v. Seymour, 97 U. S. 348; Root v. Railway Co., above cited; Manufacturing Co. v. Cowing, 105 U. S. 253; Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120; Black v. Thorne, 111 U. S. 122; Birdsell v. Shaliol, 112 U. S. 485, 488; Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104. It was argued for the defendants, that the limited construction given to Tilghman’s patent by the decision of this court in Mitchell v. Til…
-
Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Wolf Bros. & Co., 240 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1916)…s profits were attributable to the use of the infringing mark. It is said the true rule is strictly analogous to that applied in patent cases, and Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620, 650; Elizabeth v. Pavement Co., 97 U. S. 126, 139; Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120,121; Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 444; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 146; Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U. S. 139, 147; Westinghouse Co. v. Wagner Mfg. Co., 225 U. S. 604, 615; and Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Plow Co., 23…
-
Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Elec. & Mfg. Co., 225 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1912)…evidence, that the profits and damages are to be calculated oh the whole machine, for the reason that the entire value of the whole machine, as a marketable article, is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.” Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120. The real controversy arises in- applying this principle to those cases where it is impossible to, separate the single profit into its component parts. ' 2. In considering the question presented by the record here, it is to be borne in mind that C…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence