Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/463

 4A8 FEDERAL BKFOBTEB. �PUTNAM V. LOMAX. �(Œrcuit Court, K D. Minois. October 7, 1881.) �1. Lettkrs Patent — Measuee op Damages. �The profits of which the patentee is deprived by the manufacture or «se of the device, oaly a single element of which is covered by his patent, constiiute the measure of his damages. �Exception to Master's Eeport. �J. P. Altgelt, for eomplainant. �Charles E. Anthony and West & Bond, for defendant. �Blodgett, D. J. This was a suit brought by the eomplainant against the defendant for an inf rangement of a patent issued to the eomplainant, and reissued January 19, 1864, for an improvement in -wire bottle- stopper fastening. On the hearing the defendant was adjudged to infringe complainant's patent, and reference was made to a master to hear proofs, and report the profits which had accrued to the defendants by the use of complainant's patent, and to ascertain and report the damages which eomplainant had sustained thereby. The master has reported, finding amount of profits made by defendant by use of complainant's device, within the time in controversy, to be $3,585.11. To this report defendant has filed seven exceptions, �AU these exceptions relate to the amount which eomplainant is entitled to recover from defendant for the alleged infringement of his patent. �The master found that the defendant had made over 4,000 gross of the fastenings in violation of the complainant's patent; that eom- plainant was in the business of manufacturing fasteners to supply the trade; and that his profits were 86 J cents per gross for the goods at his factory. He therefore fixed the defendant's profits at what would have been the complainant's profits if defendant had bought of him. �The claim of this patent, which was sustained by the court in this case, and has been construed and sustained in several other cases by diiierent courts, is "for the U-shaped fastener made of wire, with the ends returned and connected to the bottle in order that the pressure on the cork may cause the fastener to hold more securely, as speci- fied;" and it is urged that as the U-shaped fastener alone does not make the complete instrument or device, but is only one part or ele- ment of the device, the profits on the whole fastener (part of which is not covered by complainant's patent) do not furnish a rule for the ��� �