
    WESTERN GAS FIXTURE CO. v. JEFFERSON GLASS CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    February 21, 1924.)
    No. 2192.
    Patents <@=5320 — Owner of design patent entitled to recover at least $250 from one who has knowingly infringed, without proof of damage. .
    Under Comp. St. § 9476, the owner of a design patent is entitled to recover at least $250 from one who has knowingly infringed thereon, even though the infringer’s profits from the wrongful use of the design have been much less than that sum, and there has been no proof of damage to the patentee.
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
    <gE5>For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    
      Action by the Western Gas Fixture Company against the Jefferson Glass Company. From a decree for partial relief only, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Dodson & Roe, of New York City, for appellant.
    Before WOODS and ROSE, Circuit Judges, and WEBB, District Judge.
   ROSE, Circuit Judge.

Is the owner of a design patent entitled to recover at least as much as $250 from one who has knowingly infringed thereon, even though the infringer’s profits from the wrongful use of the design have been much less than that sum and there has been no proof of damage to the patentee? Section 1 of the Act of February 4, 1887 (24 Stat. 387; Comp. St. § 9476), requires an affirmative answer. Pirkl v. Smith (C. C.) 42 Fed. 410; Untermeyer v. Freund, 58 Fed. 205, 7 C. C. A. 183. Since the cases above cited, the statute has been many times before the. court, and there ha.ve been in some respects differences as to its proper construction or application, but none as to the matter now in hand, upon which both its language and legislative history is too clear for controversy. Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 Fed. 79, 148 C. C. A. 95; House of Representatives Report No. 1966, Forty-Ninth Congress, First Session, volume 7. The District Court below was therefore in error in limiting the patentee’s recovery to $7.32, the amount of profit made by the infringer.

The decree appealed from must be reversed, and the cause remanded, in order that another may be entered in accordance with the views herein expressed.

Reversed.  