Austral Sales Corp. v. Jamestown Metal Equipment Co.

W.D. New York

Austral Sales Corp. v. Jamestown Metal Equipment Co.

45 F. Supp. 360, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 470, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2788

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York

DecidedMay 4, 1942

DocketNo. 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 45 F. Supp. 360 (Austral Sales Corp. v. Jamestown Metal Equipment Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austral Sales Corp. v. Jamestown Metal Equipment Co., 45 F. Supp. 360, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 470, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2788 (W.D.N.Y. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This matter comes before me on the question of the amount of the royalty to which the plaintiff is entitled as damages. This suit is for patent infringement. There was a consent decree. There was a single sale in which the defendant infringed. Plaintiff’s patents in suit generally relate to metalic school wardrobes and the means for mounting their doors for movement and locking mechanism.

The actual selling price of the wardrobe was $28,562. Included in this, however, there was certain steel shelving not covered by the patent. The actual selling price of the infringed device and equipment, other than shelving, was $26,964. The court took a very considerable testimony touching the question of the reasonable royalty of fairly comparable devices or structures. There is a great difference in the estimate of such royalty as made by the witness produced by the plaintiff and that produced by the defendant.

I find that the reasonable royalty upon this product based on the price at which it was sold, and not the price at which it might have been sold by other manufacturers, is $3,370.50, or 12% percent. Plaintiff may have judgment in that amount.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KNIGHT, District Judge.

This matter comes before me on the question of the amount of the royalty to which the plaintiff is entitled as damages. This suit is for patent infringement. There was a consent decree. There was a single sale in which the defendant infringed. Plaintiff’s patents in suit generally relate to metalic school wardrobes and the means for mounting their doors for movement and locking mechanism.

The actual selling price of the wardrobe was $28,562. Included in this, however, there was certain steel shelving not covered by the patent. The actual selling price of the infringed device and equipment, other than shelving, was $26,964. The court took a very considerable testimony touching the question of the reasonable royalty of fairly comparable devices or structures. There is a great difference in the estimate of such royalty as made by the witness produced by the plaintiff and that produced by the defendant.

I find that the reasonable royalty upon this product based on the price at which it was sold, and not the price at which it might have been sold by other manufacturers, is $3,370.50, or 12% percent. Plaintiff may have judgment in that amount.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. Supp. 360, 53 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 470, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austral-sales-corp-v-jamestown-metal-equipment-co-nywd-1942.