Seabury v. Am Ende,
152 U.S. 561 (1894)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U.S. 561 (1894)

Seabury v. Am Ende

No. 285

Argued March 14-15, 1894

Decided April 2, 1894

152 U.S. 561


The invention patented to Charles G. Am Ende by letters patent No. 181,024, dated August 15, 1876, which

"had for its object to combine the

Page 152 U. S. 562

various advantages of cotton fiber with those possessed by boracic acid and glycerine for preserving animal and vegetable matter from decay,"

was useful, novel, and patentable, and was described in the application and specification in sufficiently full, clear, and exact terms to enable an intelligent chemist reading that description of it to construct and use it.

In estimating the profits derived from the unlawful manufacture and sale of a patented invention, the infringer should not be allowed interest on the capital invested in his plant unless it appears that the plant was used solely for the manufacture or sale of the patented article, or the evidence be such as to enable the master to satisfactorily apportion the interest between the several kinds of business.

If the infringer be a corporation, salaries of its officers should not be allowed in estimating such profits where it does not appear that they have been actually paid.

Charles G. Am Ende, a citizen of the State of New Jersey, filed a bill of complaint in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against Seabury & Johnson, a corporation of the State of New York, in which he alleged that he was the patentee and owner of letters patent of the United States dated August 15, 1876, and numbered 181,024, for an improvement in borated cotton, and that the defendant corporation, in disregard of his rights, was engaged in making and vending borated cotton made in accordance with the method described in said letters patent. The defendant corporation, by its answer, raised the issues of novelty and patentability, which were determined in favor of the complainant, and the case resulted in a decree restraining the defendant from further infringement and awarding the complainant the sum of $2,349.15, with costs, from which decree this appeal was taken.

Page 152 U. S. 564

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law 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.