Roemer v. Simon

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Roemer v. Simon

31 F. 41, 24 Blatchf. 396, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2558

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedMay 17, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 F. 41 (Roemer v. Simon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roemer v. Simon, 31 F. 41, 24 Blatchf. 396, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2558 (circtsdny 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Wheeler, J.

A decree for an injunction against further infringement of the plaintiff’s patent, and for an account of profits and damages, was before entered in this cause. 20 Fed. Rep. 197. It has now been heard on the plaintiff’s exceptions to the master’s report of nominal damages only. The patent is for a single feature of a lock for traveling bags. [42]*42The plaintiff has granted no licenses, but has himself made and sold the locks separately and with bags, intending to supply the wants of the trade for them. He showed to the master that his profit upon these locks was 91 cents per dozen, and that the defendants had made and sold, with bags, 38,265 of them; but made no further showing of their profits. The exceptions raised the question whether these facts furnish a sufficient basis for the estimation of damages beyond merely nominal damages.

Two defects are apparent in the plaintiff’s claim in this respect—one is that the case does not show that plaintiff’s profits are due to the patented feature of the locks, in whole, or in any definite part; the other is that these facts do not show that the plaintiff would have bad an opportunity to make and sell these locks if the defendants had not made and sold them with their bags. The case shows that there are other kinds of locks for such bags, and they are mere incidents to the bags for their more convenient use. However it might be as to articles wholly covered by a patent for which there was no, or no convenient, substitute, it does not follow in a case like this that a purchaser of the principal thing with a patented incident would go until he should find that particular kind of incident before purchasing. The form, material, or workmanship, of the bag itself may have been, and is quite likely to have been, as decisive with the purchaser as, and perhaps more so than, the lock. The plaintiff may have, and probably has, suffered damages from this infringement. He must show more than this, however, in order to recover them. He must, according to the cases, show what they are, or some reliable basis for estimating them. Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; Black v. Thorne, 111 U. S. 122, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945; Dobson v. Dornan, 116 U. S. 10, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 946.

Exceptions overruled, report accepted and confirmed.

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

Wheeler, J.

A decree for an injunction against further infringement of the plaintiff’s patent, and for an account of profits and damages, was before entered in this cause. 20 Fed. Rep. 197. It has now been heard on the plaintiff’s exceptions to the master’s report of nominal damages only. The patent is for a single feature of a lock for traveling bags. [42]*42The plaintiff has granted no licenses, but has himself made and sold the locks separately and with bags, intending to supply the wants of the trade for them. He showed to the master that his profit upon these locks was 91 cents per dozen, and that the defendants had made and sold, with bags, 38,265 of them; but made no further showing of their profits. The exceptions raised the question whether these facts furnish a sufficient basis for the estimation of damages beyond merely nominal damages.

Two defects are apparent in the plaintiff’s claim in this respect—one is that the case does not show that plaintiff’s profits are due to the patented feature of the locks, in whole, or in any definite part; the other is that these facts do not show that the plaintiff would have bad an opportunity to make and sell these locks if the defendants had not made and sold them with their bags. The case shows that there are other kinds of locks for such bags, and they are mere incidents to the bags for their more convenient use. However it might be as to articles wholly covered by a patent for which there was no, or no convenient, substitute, it does not follow in a case like this that a purchaser of the principal thing with a patented incident would go until he should find that particular kind of incident before purchasing. The form, material, or workmanship, of the bag itself may have been, and is quite likely to have been, as decisive with the purchaser as, and perhaps more so than, the lock. The plaintiff may have, and probably has, suffered damages from this infringement. He must show more than this, however, in order to recover them. He must, according to the cases, show what they are, or some reliable basis for estimating them. Garretson v. Clark, 111 U. S. 120, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; Black v. Thorne, 111 U. S. 122, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 326; Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945; Dobson v. Dornan, 116 U. S. 10, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 946.

Exceptions overruled, report accepted and confirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 F. 41, 24 Blatchf. 396, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roemer-v-simon-circtsdny-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack