Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/772

 T58 7EDSBAL BBPOBTERi : �this finding and report of the master defendants have filed 13 excep- tions. . �The first seven exceptions assert iu substance that it was incum- bent on complainant to show by the proof that defendants Hot only made profits by the use of complainant's device in their machine, but the specifie amountof such profits; that complainant has not only failed to make such proof, but. also that the testimony taken and reported affirmatively shows that defendants have made no profits by the use of complainant's "long 'swing" feature in their machines. These exceptions I shail first consider. i �In a brief opinionj, directing a second reference to the master, I stated that the master would be directed to hear proof "as to what this 'long swing' element in defendants' cultivator, \irhich belongs to, complainant, is worth to defendants' machine; how much it adds to the value of defendants' maohiue-^he saleable value." I assume that this must be the basis of the inquiry. I consider the law to^ b& well Bettled that when a complainant's patent oovers but one of many features of a machine, the gains on the whdie machine cannot be reckoned as damage, but only tha gains arising from the use of the special device or element covered by the coiEplain&nt's patent. If the other parts of the machine whieh go to makf the whole a complete and operative organism manufactured by defendants are covered by patents in which complainant has no interest, or even if they are public property, the complainant cannot claim profits made by the use of such parts, even in combination with his device. For illus- tration, if an operative cultivator could be made without the use of any patented device, but by the use of a certain patent a better or improved cultivator can be made, the damages to the patentees for the use of a patent so used would be the increased value given the machine by the use of the patent, not the profits on the entire ma- chine. This rule was recognized in the Caivood Patent Case, 94 U. S. 710, where the supreme court said: �" In settling an account between a patentee and an infringer of a patent, the question is not what profits the latter has made in liis business, or from his manner of conducting it, but what advautage has he derivcd from his use of the patented invention." �So, also, Justice Hunt said, in Oould Manufg Co. v. Cowing, 8 0. G.-278:, _,;■;'■ �" I understand the rule to be settled that when the i)atent'is for an improve- ment upon a machine, tl\e damages for the infringemeiit of such patent are conflned to the profits made bfthe use of the improvemeat only, and uot by ��� �