Columbia & N. R. R. v. Chandler

(after stating the facts as above). [1] Upon a careful consideration of the record, we find no ground to disturb the findings of the court below that the invention was patentable, that the patentee was the original inventor of the improvement described in the patent, and that the trucks manufactured by the Seattle Company infringed the same.

| 2] The damages awarded to the appellees by the court below are based wholly upon the profits which the appellees lost on the sale of each set of trucks furnished the appellants by the Seattle Company. There can be. no claim for damages for making or causing to be made the trucks which were constructed by that company. The contract for their construction was entered into on February 9, 1915, and was immediately proceeded with. The application for the patent was not filed until February 25, 1915, and the patent was issued on May 25, 1915. At the date of the patent all the trucks made by the Seattle Company had been completed. Up to that time the Seattle Company had no knowledge that Chandler claimed the invention as his or had applied for a patent. In Gayler v. Wilder, 10 How. 477, 493 ( 13 L. Ed. 504 ), Chief Justice Taney said:

In Marsh v.…