22 F. 433 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana | 1884
The exceptions filed are needlessly numerous and prolix. The question to be considered is whether the damages awarded the plaintiff for the infringement of his patent are excessive. In so far as the master lias found that the proof showed an established royalty or license fee, within the meaning of Seymour v. McCormick, 16 How. 485, I think he erred. I am still of the opinion declared in National Car-brake Shoe Co. v. Terre, Haute, etc,., Co. 19 Fed. Rep. 514, and Westcott v. Rude, Id. 830, that evidence of settlements 'for infringements is not competent to show a license foe or royalty; and, upon the same principle, a license (for the fature) given wholly or partially in consideration of a settlement for infringements, is not admissible in evidence against a stranger. There are other minor points concerning.which I find it unnecessary to form an opinion. Like those stated, they are eliminated from the case by the final position upon which the master rests his conclusion. “There is a square conflict,” says the-report, “in the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant as to the value of the invention. * * ;,i In my judgment, the evidence of the complainant on this point is entitled to the greater weight, and, irrespective of any supposed license fee or royally, I regard fifteen cents per keg, and one dollar and fifty cents per cask, for each pitching, a fair and reasonable rate for estimating complainant’s damages.” There is nothing in the record to justify a disturbance of this conclusion, although the contrary evidence, standing by itself, is undeniably strong.
it is shown that soon after the issue of the patent the patented machine was offered to the public, and in some instances sold, at prices varying from §100, at first, to $80, $60, and $40, at later dates; and that in a contract between the patentees, whereby one of
Exceptions overruled, and judgment on report for the several amounts therein named for the respective cases.
