Dobson v. Dornan
Decision Date | 19 April 1886 |
Citation | 118 U.S. 10,30 L.Ed. 63,6 S.Ct. 946 |
Parties | DOBSON and another v. DORNAN and others. Filed |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 10-11 intentionally omitted] Richard P. White and H. T. Fenton, for appellants, John Dobson and another.
L. C. Cleoman, for appellees, John Dornan and others.
This is a suit in equity brought in February, 1875, by the appellees, trading as Dornan, Maybin & Co., against the appellants, John Dobson and James Dobson, in the c
ircuit court of the United States for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania, for the infringement of letters patent No. 6,822, for a design for a carpet, granted to Charles A. Righter, August 19, 1873, for three and one-half years. The entire specification is as follows: The photographic illustration is a six-inch square, containing a single figure or design. The only defense set up in the answer is non-infringement. Issue being joined, proofs were taken, and the case was heard, and in April, 1876, a decree was made finding that the patent was valid, and had been infringed, and awarding to the plaintiffs costs, an account of profits and damages before a master, and a perpetual injunction.
The master made his report in April, 1882. He found that the defendants had made no profits, and stated thus the contending views of the parties as to the proper rule of damages: The master found that the profit of the plaintiffs consisted in the exclusive use of the invention, and in the monopoly of manufacturing for others to use; that they sold their carpets at from 10 to 15 cents a yard more than the defendants did, and made a profit, in 1874, of 13 3/4 per cent., and in 1875 of 10 3/4 per cnet., their average price per yard being more than one dollar; that the defendants might have made an equal profit if they had asked the same prices, and the benefit, gain, or advantage to them might be reasonably estimated as equivalent to the money profit they might have made; that it was to be presumed that the defendants' carpets displaced the plaintiffs' in the market; that it was proper to award to the plaintiffs an amount equal to the profits they could have made, in 1874 and 1875, on the carpets made and sold by the defendants, if the plaintiffs themselves had made and sold them; that the defendants made and sold, in 1874, 19,243 1/2 yards, which would have yielded, at one dollar a yard, $19,243.50, on which the profits of the plaintiffs, at 13 3/4 per cent., would have been $2,645.97; that the defendants made and sold, in 1875, 31,280 1/2 yards, which would have yielded, at one dollar a yard, $31,280.50, on which the profits of the plaintiffs, at 10 3/4 per cent., would have been $3,362.65; and that, therefore, the plaintiffs had sustained $6,008.62 damages by the infringement of the patent.
The defendants excepted to the report, but the court confirmed it, and, in October, 1882, rendered a decree for the plaintiffs for $6,128.79, from which the defendants have appealed.
It is assigned for error that the patent is void on its face for want of a sufficient description and claim. It was issued under the act of July 8, 1870, c. 230, (16 St. 198.) Sections 71, 72, and 76 of that act provided as follows:
It is contended that section 26 of the act of July 8, 1870, applies to the present case. That section provides that, before any person shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery, he shall file in the patent office a written description of it, and 'particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his invention or discovery.' It is urged that section 26 was not complied with in this case, and that the patent is void because it contains no description, and no proper claim. But we are of opinion that the description and claim are sufficient. The purport of the description is that what the photographic illustration represents as a whole is the invention. It is that which is claimed, when applied to carpeting. The design is a pattern to be worked into a carpet, and is within the statute. Claiming the 'configuration of the design' is the same thing as claiming the design or the figure or the pattern. It is better represented by the photographic illustration than it could be by any description, and a description would probably not be intelligible without the illustration.
claim of the design patent was 'the design for a carpet, substantially as shown.' Objection was taken to the form of the claim; but this court said it saw no good objection to the form, and that the claim referred to the description as well...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Golden Eye Media USA, Inc. v. Trolley Bags UK Ltd.
...is because "[w]ords cannot easily describe ornamental designs." Sport Dimension , 820 F.3d at 1320 (citing Dobson v. Dornan , 118 U.S. 10, 14, 6 S.Ct. 946, 30 L.Ed. 63 (1886) (explaining that a claim "is better represented by the photographic illustration than it could be by any description......
-
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.
...in equity a patentee was limited to an accounting for the defendants' profits attributable to the invention. See Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 6 S.Ct. 946, 30 L.Ed. 63 (1886) (involving both patentee's lost profits and accounting for defendant's profits; apportionment required); Dobson v. ......
-
King Instruments Corp. v. Perego, s. 91-1125
... ... 5 Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10, 6 ... Page 957 ... S.Ct. 946, 30 L.Ed. 63 (1886); Dobson v. Hartford, 114 U.S. 439, 444-46, 5 S.Ct. 945, 947-49, 29 ... ...
-
Laskowitz v. Marie Designer, Inc.
...29, 1842, 5 Stat. 543. 3 Gorham Mfg. Company v. White, 2 Cir., 1871, 14 Wall. 511, 524-525, 20 L.Ed. 731. 4 Dobson v. Dornan, 1886, 118 U.S. 10, 15, 6 S.Ct. 946, 30 L.Ed. 63; American Fabrics Co. v. Richmond Lace Works, 2 Cir., 1928, 24 F.2d 365. 5 In re Mains, 1935, 77 F.2d 533, 534, 22 C.......
-
Design Patent Functionality After Egyptian Goddess And Richardson: The Assumption Of Claim Construction Dysfunction And Gumption
...4, 2005). 10 Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 88 USPQ2d 1658, 1669 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). 11 Id. (quoting Dobson v. Dorman, 118 U.S. 10, 14 12 Id. (citing OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1405 (Fed.Cir.1997) ("Where a design contains both functional and non-......
-
Chapter §23.04 Remedies for Infringement of Design Patents
...no profit from their wrong").[159] 35 U.S.C. §289 (2012) (emphasis added).[160] 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998).[161] See Dobson v. Dornan, 118 U.S. 10 (1886); Dobson v. Hartford Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885); Dobson v. Bigelow Carpet Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885).[162] Nike, Inc., 138 F.3d at ......