BOD ENGRAVING PLATE CO. tl. BCHBAUBSTADTJCB.
Such exact description was, however, essential to the validity of his patent, in view of the narrow field of invention which was really open to him, for the production of shifting light and shadows by means of corrugations on the surface of many different substances was old, and had in the prior art been applied to rubber. The patent contains no separate claim for the border, as in Dobson v. Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945, and the defendant's combination of his central panel with the complainant's border cannot be held to be an infringement unless. complainant first produced such combination, and exhibited it in his patent so clearly and fully that one skilled in the art would understand that it was that specific combination which the patentee claimed. As none of the defendant's mats infringe the only specific design exhibited in the patent and shown in the drawing, the decree of the circuit court should be reversed, with costs.
HOKE ENGRAVING PLATE CO. v. SCHRAUBSTADTER.
(Circult Court, E. D. Missouri, E. D.
November 2, 1892.)
PATENTS FOR INV:&NTIONs-lNlI'RINGEMENT-DAMAGES-PROFITS.
The entire profits deriv by an infringer from the manufacture and d sale of an article which owes its entire commercial value to the patented invention are recoverable in a suit for infringement.
In Equity. Bill by the Hoke Engraving Plate Company agains'G Oarl Schraubstadter, Jr., for the infringement of letters patent ot the United Htates, No. 388,361, granted to said company for an im· provement in relief type production. On exceptions to master's report Overruled. For llo report of the opinion delivered at the time the interlocutory decree for the complainant was entered, see 47 Fed. Rep. 506. Benjamin F. Rex, for complainant. George H. Knigoht and H. G. Ellis, for defendant. THAYER, District Judge, (orally.) In this case the master finds, as a matter of fact, that the infringing engraving plates manufactured and sold by the defendant during the period of the infringement derive their entire commercial value from the invention covered by complainant's patent If this is the fact, then it follows that the complainant is entitled to recover the manufacturer's profits. The defendant's attorneys do not dispute this proposition. The real question that arises under the exceptions is whether the master is right in his finding of fact, that defendant's engraving plates derived their entire commercial value from the infringement of complainant's patent. I have considered the testimony on this poin' carefully, and I am unable to say that the master's finding is errone· OUS. The result is that the exceptions to the master's report must be overruled; but, as the complainant's solicitor professes a willingness that the defendant should be made some allowance for the use of his plant, I have concluded to allow him on that account the sum of '270, which is the .largest amount claimed.. Deducting that SUlD v.53F.no.8-52 .
deeree'Will be entered for the complainant for 'the sum of $17,842.37, Witli' iD.'tere!lt 'from this da.te. ., , ",'
ascertained "by the master, a
UNITED STATES CREDIT SYSTEM CO. v. AMFJRICAN NITY CO.
'(Circuit Court, S. D. New York. January 6, 1893.)
rer, when it, makes profert ()f the patent, and the same appears on its face:to ,be invalid for want of patentable invention. Post v. Hardware Co., 618, . Letters patent No. 465,485, issued December 22,1891, to Levy Maybaum, for "means for securing against excessive losses for bad debts," being a plan of insurance agains losses from bad debts in excess of the usual percentaga:of such losses in a given Une of business, the patent providing forms f?r ruling paper with spaces for entering various details of the insurance',:tl'lnlsactlon, are' void for want of invention. Munson v. Mayor, 601, distinguished. etc., 3 Fed. Rep. 338; Id.,8 Sup. Ct. Rep, 622, 124 U.
2. SAME-INVENTION-CREDIT INSURANOE SYSTEM.
III EtJ,uitY. Bill byf.b,e United !States Credit System Company against the American Credit Indemnity CompaJ;l,y for the infringement of letters patent No. 465,485, dated December 22, 1891, and granted to !levy Maybaum for means for securing against excessive losses for bad debts. Hoord on demurrer to the bill. Demurrer sus· tained. In a 'prior suit between the same parties upon this patent, the cir· cuit court for the northern district of illinois also sustained a demur· rerto the "btn for want of patentable invention. See 51 Fed. Rep. 751, where a full description of the alleged invention," accompanied by cuts shOWing the ruled forms of the patent, may be found. Rowland Cox, for plaintiff. Edgar M. Johnson, for defendant.
WHEELER, District Judge. This bill is brought upon letters patent No. 465,485, dated December 22, 1891, and granted to Levy 'Maybaum, assignor to the plaintiff, for "means for securing against excessive losses for bad debts," makes profert of them, and is demurred to. As the patent contains a grant under the constitution and laws of the United States "to the patentee, his heirs or assigns, for the term of seventeen years, of the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention 01' discovery throughout the United States and the territories thereof," and the bill alleges infringement, the defendant. must be put to the statutory defenses, unless what the patent is, so far. from any patentable invention or discovery as to be void,and require no defense whatever. St. U. s. §§ 4884, 4920. A bill upon such a void patent would seem 'to require no answer, (Hill v..' 132 U. S..693, 10 Sup. Ct. ReP. 228 ;) therefore it may demurrer, (post v. B:ardware Co., 26 Fed. Rep. 618.) The inventioD.sought to be covered by this proCess is ofa method