« AnteriorContinuar »
tablished, and that the adoption of the view as to anticipation and construction now contended for by the defendant would practically result in a reversal of our former opinions.
The decree is affirmed, with costs.
WORCESTER COUNTY GAS CO. V. DRESSER.
The Dresser patent, No. 625,155, for pipe coupling designed to unite the ends of sections of pipe and to insulate them from each other to prevent electrolysis, was not anticipated and discloses invention. Also
held infringed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.
The following is the opinion of the Circuit Court, by Lowell, Circuit Judge:
This was a bill in equity for the infringement of letters patent No. 625,155, granted to Dresser, for improvements in pipe coupling. The following claims are in suit:
"1. The herein described combination of a clamping-ring provided with an aperture therethrough, a pipe-section having a uniform diameter throughout its length less than the diameter of the aperture in said ring and passing through such aperture a second pipe-section, means for insulating the pipesertions from each other, means for insulating said first-mentioned pipe-section from the ring through which it passes, and means for compressing the insulating material by a movement of the clamping-ring longitudinally of the pipe-sections, whereby said pipe-sections are insulated from each other, said ring is insulated from the pipe-section passing therethrough, and provision is made for the movement of the said pipe-section through said ring to allow for expansion and contraction, substantially as described.
"2. The herein-described combination with two pipe-sections, of a clamping-ring for each pipe-section, provided with an aperture through the same for the passage of its pipe-section therethrough, means for insulating the adjacent ends of said sections from each other, means for insulating each of said rings from the pipe-section passing therethrough, clamping means for drawing said rings toward each other to compress the insulating material, whereby said pipe-sections are insulated from each other, each pipesection is insulated from the ring through which it passes and provision is made for the free movement of each of said pipe-sections through their respective rings and through the insulating material to allow for longitudinal expansion and contraction, substantially as described.
*3. A pipe-coupling for uniting the adjacent ends of pipe-sections and insulating them from each other, including among its members a cylindrical portion, a clamping-plate adapted to surround one of said pipe-sections and provided with clamping-bolts, and an insulating and packing ring having a portion interposed between said cylindrical portion and said plate and an insulating sleeve portion surrounding said pipe-section between it and said plate, substantially as described.
“4. As pipe-coupling for uniting the adjacent ends of pipe-section and in. sulating them from each other, including among its members a cylindrical portion adapted to extend over the end of one of the pipe-sections, a clamping-plate adapted to surround said pipe-section and provided with a packingrecess on one side, and a packing and insulating ring having a portion adapted to be interposed between the said cylindrical portion and said plate and to
occupy said packing-recess and an insulating-sleeve adapted to extend between said plate and said pipe-section, substantially as described."
*7. A pipe-coupling for uniting the ends of two pipe-sections and insulating them from each other, comprising among its members two clamping-plates adapted to surround said pipe-sections, each provided with a packing-recess and apertures for clamping bolts, a coupling-sleeve adapted to extend over the adjacent end portions of the said pipe-sections, packing-rings adapted to engage said packing-recesses and to engage the ends of said sleeve, one of said rings being provided with an insulating-sleeve adapted to be interposed between one of said pipe-sections and the clamping-ring through which it passes and the clamping-bolts, substantially as described.
"8. A coupling for uniting the adjacent ends of pipe-sections and insulating them from each other, comprising among its members two clamping-plates, each provided with an aperture for the passage of the pipe therethrough and a packing-recess, a coupling-sleeve adapted to cover the adjacent portions of the pipe-sections between said plates, the packing-rings engaging said packingrecesses, and adapted to engage the ends of said sleeve, one of said rings being provided with an insulating-sleeve adapted to lie between one of said plates and the pipe passing therethrough, insulating material interposed between the ends of said pipe-sections and the clamping-bolts for uniting said clampingplates, substantially as described.
"9. A coupling for uniting the adjacent ends of pipe-sections and insulating them from each other, comprising among its members two clamping-plates, each provided with an aperture for the passage of the pipe therethrough and a packing recess, a coupling-sleeve adapted to cover the adjacent portions of the pipe-sections, between said plates, the packing-rings engaging said packing-recesses, and adapted to engage the ends of said sleeve, one of said rings being provided with an insulating-sleeve adapted to lie between one of said plates and the pipe passing therethrough, an insulating-sleeve engaging said pipe within the coupling-sleeve, and having a flange engaging the end of the pipe, and the clamping-bolts, for uniting said clamping-plates, substantially as described,"
From the specifications it appears that the object of the patent was to prevent the electrolytic action which disintegrates water and gas pipes laid underground in the neighborhood of electric wires. If the return current passing through a pipe thus laid is broken by insulating each length of pipe from its neighbor, electrolysis is so far diminished as to be negligible. The problem to be solved by the patentee, therefore, was the insulated coupling of pipes of several inches diameter laid under ground. The complainant's patent in suit has gone into considerable use. The defendant contends that the claims in suit are invalid, but otherwise does not deny infringements of claims 1, 2, 7. 8 and 9. Yo earlier device for accomplishing the object just described was put in evidence. The defendant relied wholly upon two classes of patents:
First. Those concerned with the coupling of pipe, without reference to insulation. Of these, 18.116, issued to Wright, is typical. Wright employed vulcanized rubber to make a tight joint, but without insulation or the thought of it. No sutficient provision was made in the Wright patent for the shrinkage and expansion of the pipes, a most important consideration in the art before the court. No. 389.797, a patent issued to the complainant before that here in suit, and even before the danger from electrolysis was recognized, also had for its object a tight joint, and it neither sought nor effected insulation.
Second. Patents intended to insulate a chandelier or a bracket from a gas pipe. This is a different art, whose appliances are useless for laying pipes underground. Corrosion of the insulating substance by water, acid, and other constituents of the soil is not to be feared in the air of a house. On the other hand, the chandelier joint must sustain a considerable weight in proportion to its size, which is not necessary in coupling gas and water pipes under ground. The patents thus urged on the court are in a different art from that of the patent in suit. In the Deavs patent, No. 299,206, for example, the two ends of the gas pipe are screwed into flanged heads, an arrangement impossible of adaptation to large pipes laid under ground. Moreover, there is un. contradicted evidence that all these gas couplings failed of their purpose. AI the elements of the patent in suit were old, as the defendant points out, but their combination was new, and it accomplished for the first time the end sought, viz., the coupling an underground joint so as to secure Insulation and prevent electrolysis. The patentee thus obviated a dificulty recently discovered. The claims in suit are held valid.
Some slight question was made at the argument concerning the defendant's Infringement of claims 3 and 4. No mention of the matter was made in the brief, and the suggestion came from the court. In the absence of some analysis of these claims, and of argument thereon, I do not feel myself required to make full investigation and to determine if claims 3 and 4 are limited to & specific form of the invention shown in figure 4 of the drawings, a form which the defendant does not employ. These claims, as well as the others In suit, are held to be infringed.
Decree for the complainant.
Richard J. McCarty (Arnold Scott, on the brief), for appellant. Louis P. Whitaker (Whitaker & Prevost, on the brief), for appellee.
Before COLT and PUTNAM, Circuit Judges, and ALDRICH, District Judge.
PER CURIAM. We are entirely satisfied with the conclusion reach· ed by the Circuit Court, and with the reasons given therefor by the leamed judge of that court.
The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed, and the appellee recovers his costs of appeal.
NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. V. GROBET et al.
Complainant manufactured and sold without restriction two styles of patented cash registers and indicators, numbered, respectively, 78 and 79, The two were alike, except that No. 79 contained an additional printing device, which, in combination with the other parts, was covered by a separate patent. Defendants, becoming the lawful owners of a No. 79 machine, removed the printing device therefrom and supplied and attached It to a No. 78 machine of another owner, charging and receiving payment therefor, and making, in effect, a No. 79 machine. Held, that such action was an infringement of the right to manufacture the patented combination, with which complainant had not parted by the sale of the No.
78 machine. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This cause comes here by appeal from a decree of the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissing the bill alleging infringement of complainant's patent No. 483,511, granted September 27, 1892, to Hugo Cook, for improvements in cash registers and indicators. The opinion of the court below is reported in 148 Fed. 385.
J. B. Hayward and Drury W. Cooper, for appellant.
Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and TOWNSEND, Circuit Judges.
TOWNSEND, Circuit Judge. The questions at issue herein are raised by a stipulation, which, inter alia, sets forth the following facts:
"That continuously since the issuance of the patent in suit . . . complainant has manufactured and sold outright and unconditionally two styles of machines to which it has applied the trade designations 'No. 78' and 'No. 79.' No. 78 prints and ejects from the machine individual checks containing data of each registration as made. * * * No. 79 contains, in addition to what is contained in the No. 78 machine, mechanism for printing at each operation, upon a record contained permanently within the machine, the data of each registration, such permanent record being known as a 'detail strip,' and said mechanism being termed herein, for the purpose of the stipulation, the 'detail strip printing mechanism.' The No. 79 machines are those alleged in the bill to contain the invention of the patent in suit, and particularly the improvements set forth in claims 1, 3, 4, 12, and 17, upon which alone complainant relies.
"That during the year 1898 the complainant or its predecessor made and sold outright and unconditionally a cash register of the No. 78 type; * . * that said machine ultimately came lawfully into the possession of one Gustav Kessler as a vendee, direct or indirect, of the complainant, who, on or about the 1st day of May, 1906, procured the defendants in this action to add the parts to said machine (i. e., a detail strip printing mechanism) that would enable it to print also upon the permanent record or detail strip'; and that said defendants did, in fact, add to said No. 78 machine the said parts ; * * * that said defendants charged the sum of $50 and were paid that sum by said Kessler for so doing, and the cash register made a part of this statement, and marked 'Exhibit B,' is the cash register so altered by the defendants for Kessler ; that the defendants have, under like circumstances and in like manner, added detail strip printing mechanism to other No. 78 machines for their uses, and have also bought No. 78 machines, and after adding such detail strip printing mechanism have sold them as No. 79 cash registers.
"That the defendants, in doing the work hereinabove referred to, have used only parts or mechanism taken from No. 79 machines originally made and sold, outright and unconditionally, by the complainant or its predecessors. during its or their ownership of the patent in suit, which machines were put in use by the several vendees thereof and have come into defendants' hands by purchase or exchange."
The complainant herein does not claim contributory infringement, and the defendants do not claim that the acts done were in the nature of repair. Defendants claim that, as they “used only parts or mechanism taken from No. 79 machines originally made and sold, outright and unconditionally," they have merely added such portion of the complete manufacture to another machine.
Complainant's petition appears from the following statement taken from its brief:
“The complainant asks no extended monopoly by reason of any notice of license restrictions imposed upon the sale of the patented article. All that it asks is the full measure of the monopoly granted by the patent, such that in merely parting with the right to use the patented machine there shall be no encroachment upon the monopoly of manufacture, and no invasion of the complainant's exclusive right to make or unite the combinations of the patent in
The forcible argument of counsel for defendants and the opinion of the court below are based upon a consideration of the rights acquired by the defendants in the No. 79 machines unconditionally purchased by them. In the disposition of the case we do not find it necessary to pass upon the questions thus presented, except in so far as they relate to the No. 78 machine and the rights and limitations attached thereto.
It may be assumed that the unrestricted sale of a No. 78 machine "carried with it dominion over the article so sold,” and conferred upon the purchaser and his vendees the right to "hold and deal with it the same as in case of any other description of property to him.” Wilson v. Rousseau, 4 How. (U. S.) 646, 11 L. Ed. 1141; George Frost Co. v. Kora Co. (C. C.) 136 Fed. 467, affirmed 140 Fed. 987, 71 C. C. A. 19; Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. (C. C.) 40 Fed. 577, affirmed 152 U. S. 425, 14 Sup. Ct. 627, 38 L. Ed. 500; Holiday v. Mattheson (C. C.) 24 Fed. 185. But the purchaser of the No. 78 machine acquired no right to infringe the patentee's right to manufacture said combination known as No. 79. When these defendants, therefore, supplied said attachment and added it to said No. 78 machine, and thereby converted it into a No. 79 machine by uniting to it the patented attachment which made up the complete combination of No. 79, they infringed said right of manufacture of the patented combination, with which complainant had not parted by the sale of a No. 78 machine.
It is immaterial whether this is considered as in the nature of contributory infringement, which would be made out if defendants supplied such attachments to owners of No. 78 machines with the intent that such owners should combine the attachment with the rest of the machine, or of actual infringement under the stipulated facts because the defendants have themselves added the attachments to No. 78 machines owned by them.
The well-settled rule is that the purchaser of a patented article from the patentee acquires the absolute right to the unrestricted use of said article; that by the sale it passes beyond the limit of the monopoly. But it would be perversion of this rule to say that such a purchaser may use a portion of said article for the purpose of enabling the owner of a machine sold by the patentee, without said portion to construct a patented combination which he is not licensed to manu- . facture or use.
The decree is reversed, with costs, and the cause is remanded to the court below, with instructions to enter a decree overruling the plea.
HALL SIGNAL CO. et al. v. GENERAL RY. SIGNAL CO. et al.
It is a cardinal principle of equity jurisprudence that a preliminary injunction shall not issue in a doubtful case, and, unless the court is convinced with reasonable certainty that the complainant must succeed at final hearing, the writ should be denied.
[Fd. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Injunction, $ 309.) 2 PATENTS-SUIT FOR INFRINGEMENT-PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.
The showing on a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain infringement of a number of unadjudicated patents, relating to electric rail