Garretson v. Clark
| Citation | 111 U.S. 120,4 S.Ct. 291,28 L.Ed. 371 |
| Parties | GARRETSON v. CLARK and others |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1884 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Jas. A. Allen, for appellant.
W. F. Cogswell, for appellee.
In this case the court below sustained the plaintiff's patents, adjudged that the defendants were infringers, and directed a reference to a master, to ascertain and report the profits and gains made by the defendants. The master reported that no proof was presented to him that they had made any profit, or that the plaintiffs had suffered any damages. The court sustained the report, and the decree allowed the plaintiffs only nominal damages. From this decree the appeal is taken. Garretson v. Clark, 15 Blatchf. 70.
The patent was for an improvement in the construction of mop-heads, which may be described, with sufficient accuracy, as an improvement in the method of moving and securing in place the movable jam or clamp of a mop-head. With the exception of this mode of clamping, mop-heads like the plaintiff's had been in use time out of mind. Before the master, the plaintiff proved the cost of his mop-heads, and the price at which they were sold, and claimed the right to recover the difference as his damages. This rule was rejected; and, no other evidence of damages being offered, the master reported as stated. When a patent is for an improvement, and not for an entirely new machine or contrivance, the patentee must show in what particulars his improvement has added to the usefulness of the machine or contrivance. He must separate its results distinctly from those of the other parts, so that the benefits derived from it may be distinctly seen and appreciated. The rule on this head is aptly stated by Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD in the court below: 'The patentee,' he says, 'must in every case give evidence tending to separate or apportion the defendant's profits and the patentee's damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative; or he must show, by equally reliable and satisfactory evidence, that the profits and damages are to be calculated on the whole machine, for the reason that the entire value of the whole machine, as a marketable article, is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.' The plaintiff complied with neither part of this rule. He produced no evidence to apportion the profits or damages between the improvement constituting the patented feature and the other features of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ajaxo, Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp.
...features, and such evidence must be reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative.’ " (Quoting Garretson v. Clark (1884) 111 U.S. 120, 121, 4 S.Ct. 291, 28 L.Ed. 371 ; Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2011) 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 ; Virnetx, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.......
-
Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Electric & Mfg. Co.
... ... 61 F. 980, 10 C.C.A. 216; Baker v. Crane, 138 F. 60, ... 70 C.C.A. 486; Robertson v. Blake, 94 U.S. 728, 24 ... L.Ed. 245; Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 4 ... Sup.Ct. 291, 28 L.Ed. 371 ... The ... master's report shows that appellant offered no evidence ... upon ... ...
-
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., Inc.
...machine, as a marketable article, was "properly and legally attributable" to the patented feature. See Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121, 4 S.Ct. 291, 291-92, 28 L.Ed. 371 (1884); Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Wagner Elec. & Mfg. Co., 225 U.S. 604, 615, 32 S.Ct. 691, 694-95, 56 L.Ed.......
-
King Instruments Corp. v. Perego, s. 91-1125
...of the whole machine, as a marketable article, is properly and legally attributable to the patented feature.' Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, [4 S.Ct. 291, 28 L.Ed. 371]." Westinghouse Co. v. Wagner Mfg. Co., 225 U.S. 604, 615, 32 S.Ct. 691, 694, 56 L.Ed. 1222 (1912) (emphasis added); acc......
-
Navigating Between The 'Hypothetical Negotiation' And Real World Facts In Proving Patent Damages
...to the accused product, separate and apart from the value of features not covered by the patent-in-suit. See Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 (1884). The Federal Circuit hears all appeals in patent infringement cases. Historically, that Court's position on the challenges presented by t......
-
A Primer On Patent Apportionment
...using a lost profits analysis as Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 6. Garretson Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 121 7. Virnetx, 767 3d at 1327. 8. LaserDynamics, v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 694 F.3d 51, 66 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 9. Id. at 67-68. 10. Id. at 67. 11. ......
-
Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell: Marvell Loses Motion To Exclude Damage Expert Testimony That Included Price And Profit Margin On Chips Where Damage Expert Did Not Rely Upon Entire Market Value Rule
...evidence 'reliable and tangible, and not conjectural or speculative' at trial. LaserDynamics, 694 F.3d at 67 (citing Garretson v. Clark, 111 US 120, 121 Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD, et al., Case No. 09-290 (W.D. Penn. Nov. 5, 2012) The content of this article......
-
Federal Circuit Refines Patent Damages Analysis As To Apportionment And Standard-Essential Patents
...the proof of damages. It noted that apportionment, which dates back to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884), has even greater importance today, given "the great financial incentive parties have to exploit the inherent imprecision in patent va......
-
Chapter §20.04 Damages for Past Infringements
...damages between the patented feature and the unpatented features" using "reliable and tangible" evidence. Garretson, 111 U.S. at 121, 4 S.Ct. 291. 479 Federal Circuit opinions reflect a division of views concerning apportionment in the lost profits context. For example, whether the well-est......
-
Application of Patent Law Damages Analysis to Trade Secret Misappropriation Claims: Apportionment, Alternatives, and Other Common Limitations on Damages
...the invention and the value that product would have had if the next best substitute invention were employed. Id. 106. Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 107. Id. at 121. 108. Id. 109. Id. 110. Id. In an earlier decision, Seymour v. McCormick, the Supreme Court noted the absurd results that wo......
-
Evidence-based Patent Damages
...2d at 283.70. Id.71. Id. at 288.72. LaserDynamics, Inc., 694 F.3d at 68.73. Id. at 67.74. Id.75. Id.76. See generally Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884).77. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the entire market value rule is "derived ......
-
9-2 MONETARY RELIEF
...Tex. Oct. 27, 2014).[44] MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. GE Consumer & Indus., Inc., 622 F.3d 361, 367 n.2 (5th Cir. 2010).[45] Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 120-21 (1884).[46] Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120, 120-21 (1884); see also Nilssen v. Motorola, Inc., No. 93 C 6333, 1998 WL 851493, at *......