Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

39 F. 613

Fischer v. Hayes

United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York · decided 1889-08-15

<p>In Equity. Application for assessment of damages for infringement of patent.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1915

1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Where a master reports that the profits of defendant derived from the infringement of plaintiff’s patent cannot be computed from the evidence, nominal damages only can be assessed, though it is apparent that there were profits.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Decker v. Smith

Relies on Garretson v. Clark · Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co. · Black v. Thorne

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Patents for Inventions—Damages for Infringement.

¶2Where a master reports that the profits of defendant derived from the infringement of plaintiffs patent cannot be computed from the evidence, nominal damages only can be assessed, though it is apparent that there were profits.

¶3In Equity. Application for assessment of damages for infringement of patent.

¶4Edmu/nd Wetmore, for plaintiff.

¶5Livingston Gifford, for defendant.

¶6Wheeler, J.

¶7This cause has now been heard upon the supplemental report of the master as to profits of the defendant from infringement of the plaintiffs patent. The substance of the report, as it now stands, is that from all the evidence before the master the amount of such profits “cannot be computed or determined.” Therefore, while that there were some profits is apparent from the report, no definite extent of them attributable to the infringement for which the defendant is chargeable appears. There is no foundation for a decree for the payment of anything beyond merely nominal damages. Fischer v. Hayes, 22 Fed. Rep. 529; 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. Carpet Co., 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 945. No exceptions are filed to the report, and the only question is as to what is a proper decree upon the facts stated. *614Report accepted and confirmed, and decree thereupon prdered for the payment by defendant to the orator of six cents profits as damages, with costs.

/39/f1d/613 · .json · Public domain