Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co.
141 U.S. 441 (1891)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Crosby Steam Gage & Valve Co. v. Consolidated Safety Valve Co., 141 U.S. 441 (1891)

Crosby Steam Gage and Valve Company

v. Consolidated Safety Valve Company

No. 999

Argued October 22, 7891

Decided November 2, 1891

141 U.S. 441

Syllabus

On an accounting as to profits and damages, on a bill for the infringement of letters patent No. 58,294, granted to George W. Richardson, September 25, 1866, for an improvement in steam safety valves, Circuit Court, confirming the report of the master, allowed to the plaintiff the entire profit made by the defendant from making and selling safety valves containing the patented improvement, and this Court affirmed the decree on the ground that the entire commercial value of the defendant's valves was to be attributed to the patented improvement of Richardson.

It was held that the plaintiffs valves of commerce all of them contained the improvements covered by the patent of Richardson, and that, as the master had reported no damages in addition to profits, the amount of profits could not be affected by the question whether the plaintiff did or did not use the patented Invention.

It was proper not to make any allowance to the defendant for the value of improvements covered by subsequent patents owned and used by the defendant.

It was also proper not to allow to the defendant for valves made by the defendant and destroyed by it before sale, or after a sale and in exchange for other valves, which did not appear in the account on either side.

It was also proper not to allow a credit for the destroyed valves against the profits realized by the defendant on other valves.

Interest from the date of the master's report was properly allowed on the amount of profits reported by the master and decreed by the court.

Page 141 U. S. 442

In equity. The case is stated in the opinion.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.