m 42 » FEDERAL REPORTER.
° , The plaintiff has granted no licenses, but has himself made and sold the
. locks separately and with bags, intending to supply the wants of the
‘ · trade for them. He showed to the master that his profit upon these
locks was 91 cents per dozen, and that the defendants had made and e
sold, with bags,.38,265 of them; but made no further showing of their
__ . proits. The exceptionsraised the question whether these facts furnish
a sufficient basis for the estimation of damages beyond merely nominal
damages. ~ ~
Two. defects are apparent in the plaintiff’s claim in this respect—one
is that the case does not show that plaintiff ’s pronts are due to the pat-
ented feature of the locks, in whole, or in any definite part; the other is
that these facts do not show that the plaintiff would have had an oppor-
tunity to make and sell these locks if the defendants had not made and
sold themwith their bags. The case shows that there areother kinds
of locks for such bags,¢e.nd they are mere incidents to the bags for their
f more convenient use. » However it might be as to articles wholly covered
A by a patent for which there was no, or no convenient, substitute, it does
not follow ina case like this that a purchaser ofthe principal thing with
A a patented incident would go until he should End that particular kind
of incident before purchasing. The form, material, or workmanship,
ofthe bag itself may have been, and is iiuite likely to have been, as de-
cisive with the purchaser as, and perhaps more so than, the lock. The
plaintiff may have, and; probably has, suffered damages from this in-
fringement. He must show more than this, however, in order to re-
cover them. Hemust, according to the cases, show what they are, or .
some reliable basis for estimating them. V Garretsen v. Clark, 111 U. S.
120, 4` sup; Ct. asp; 291, Black vi Thorne, 111 U. S. 122, 4 Sup. Ot.
Rep. 326.;.·Dobson=v. Hartford Carpet Oo., 114 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep.
{945; Debscn‘v.j»"Dm·ntrxn. 116 U. S. 10, 6 Sup. Ct. Bep; 946,
Exceptions`overruledi, report accepted and confirmed.
i. 4 ,, ; Corrtm v. Kamnmrrz and others.   ‘ `
, ;   , 4 vtcmw. cme, s. 0. New York. May 12., iss?.) _,
_ Psirgirrsl: ron, INVEN'1‘IONS—PATENTLBILITY—NOVELTY—COLLAR we Smmvm
V U {Eid? patent No. 202,412, dated April 16, 1878, to Shubael Cottle, for im- I
provement in collar and sleeve buttons, contained two claims,—0ne for the
making of such buttons by striking up the post from the back, forming them
_ in one piece, thickening the post at the base for strength, and soldering the
~ head to thepost; the other for the button, whose tubular back and post are
formed in one piece, and having the metal thickened at the base of the post.
‘ Held, that the iirst claim was patentable for novelty in method of construo·
“ tion. but that the claim for the button itself was not. » -
In Equity. Bill for infringement of letters patent. . ‘
V W. H.~L. Lee, for orator. · , » V
FredeMh»H. Betts and J. E. Htnden Hyde, for defendants.