Schoonmaker-Conners Co. v. Rosoff Engineering Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a patentee may recover lost profits on components that have a functional relationship with the patented invention
• holding that the court has discretion to award compound interest which ensures that the wronged party is fully compensated
• holding that lost sales of a patentee’s product which directly competed with the infringing product but which was not covered by the infringed patent, was a reasonably foreseeable injury and clearly compensable
• holding that when no royalty rate has been established, “a royalty may be based upon . . . the supposed result of hypothetical negotiations between the plaintiff and defendant.”
• holding that to prove entitlement to lost profits damages, the patentee needs to show “a reasonable probability that, ‘but for’ the infringement, it would have made the sales that were made by the infringer.”
• stating that if the holder of legal title to a patent does not sell a product, by definition it cannot recover lost profits

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).