LOCKE !7. LANE & BODLEY CO.
United States for his support is to be made through the sheriff. And for such support the sheriff is entitled to a just and reasonable compensation, but nothing more. He cann()t himself arbitrarilydetermine what the compensation shall be. If so, an unreasonable or exorbit8:nt rate might be fixed. In the nature of things, it cannot' be worth more to support a prisoner held for a violation of a law of the United States than one held for a violation of a law of the state of California; and as the government of the United States duly tehdered the sheriff the amount fixed by the supervisors of the county as Ii. just compensation for .the keeping and support of state and county prisoners, which it must be presumed is a reasonable compensation therefor, the sheriff was tendered for the support of the prisoner in question all that he was entitled toreceive or demand. It results that he must be adjudged guilty of the contempt charged, but inasmuch as counsel have explflined rhe real purpose of the proceeding to be to obtain an authoritative dewl'luination of the rights and obligations of the sheriff, the judgment is that he pay' a nominal fioe of one dollar.
Oourt, S. D. Ohio
May 2ll, 1888 )
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-COMBINATlONS-... VALVES.
Patent No. 173,653, granted to Joseph !I, Locke, February 15,1876; for improvement in three-way balanced stop-valves for. hydraulic elevators, displays invention, since, though the parts used in the combination are old, the combination itself, which is all that is claimed, is new, and produces '\ new and ul'leful result. . ,
As the Locke patent expressly disclaims graduated valve openings, either broadly or of any specific form, except in combination, and does not claim cup-packing· except in combination, that patent is not invalidated ,by the de. scription of a mine pumping engine designed by M. Junkes, contained in Rankin's Manual of the Steam-Engine and other Prime Movers, (5th Ed., London, 1870,) p. 140 Irl seq., or by the description 'of cup-packing on po:ge"128 of the same The patents to Dunlap, No. 182,526, October 29,1872, for improvement in b,alanced valves, and to No. 148,266. September 80. 1875', fot im,provement in balanced valves for hydraulic cranes, do not anticipate the Locke improvement.
.. SAME':""WHO ENTITLED ro-BURDEN 011' PROOF.
In a suit for infringement of patent, where complainanttestifiell that he devised the improvement patented before he entered defendant's employment, and defendant testifies ,that certain changes in the design were made after such employment, at his suggestion, and were not the sole produc'tion of the complainant, which is denied by complainant, the burden of proof being on defendant. the invention held to be that of complainant.
To P ABTNERSHIP-TRANSII'ER 011' PARTNERSHIP TO CORPO-
SAME - LICENSE RATION.
A contract with a partnership, whereby it was to have the use and benefil of complainant's invention, confers no right thereto upon a corporation sub-
tll.e pp,rtJj.l:lrS,who became its SOlllllhareholders; nor QOellaD l!'ssigJ;1ment by the partners of all the property and .assets of the firm confer' upon it any right to use such invention. to the
6. SA1d:lll-RIGB:TOF MAsTER'TO INVENTION OF SERVANT-AssIGNMENT BY MAS· TER.";:'" ' . ',.;;, . : , 1 ·
A firJ;lljwith which cotQ.pJainanthad been employe!i as a draughtsman. dis· solved, and the surviVors organized a corporation. taking most of the stock themselves, and alIsigning to the corporation all the property and assets of the firm. Held,that :even if. the. tJrm. under a custom, acquired the right to the l1se of an invention, JllaQe bYl,lpmplainant while in their employ, and afterwardsp'atentedbyl1hn, the 'assignment did not give the corporation the right to usathe,inventiol:l'
n " . ·
In ,Equity.! Bill forinfringement of patents. On final hearing. Joseph M., Locke, complainant, filed a bill against the Lane & Bodley Company; defendants; for infringing patents, alleging that he ,had entered)ilto the employ of the firm of Lane & Bodley, manufacturers oftniscellaneotts machineryjdn' 1871, as draughtsman. The firm was thencoqJ:lI}enCing the manufacture of hydraulic elevators, and subsequently made numerous forms of valves for controlling the motion of said elevators, but these valves all proved failures in practical use, and had to be abandoned, Locke brought to the drawing-room of Me8srs. Lane & Bodley sketches he had previously made of the device subsequently patented, and from them working drawings, from made, and put in use by Messrs. Lane & which drawings Bodley III February, 1874, Locke left his employment with Lane & Bodlt:y, but previously informed one of the partners he would patent valve, hold the firm responsible for any iIJfringements thereon. In: 1875 the 'senior mern her of the firm of Lane & Bodley asked Locke what royalty he proposed:charging the firm. Locke replied; $25. The r(lJoindervvlas that SUCh :would be satisfactory upon a: good patent being .. On :F'lilbrllary,15, 1876, the patent was issued to the plaintiff. In April, 1876, the firm of Lane & Bodley was dissolved, corporationo(the ,Lane & Bodley Company formed; all the shlti'es ,9f stock of said c,ompany, excepting 30 reserved for sale to employes,. being held by the old members of the firm of Lane & Bodle)' , had transferred .alltheir rights to the new company On May 20th of the same year (1876) Locke opened up the subject of the valve with Lane, at Philadelphia, but Lane was evasive. Shortly, Lopke returned. to the Pacific slope, where he had been enof the time since leaving the firm of Lane & Bodley in 1874. In 1880!L<lckeentered 'into 'business relations with the Lane & Bodley Company, representing the company upon the Pacific slope, with quarters .at SaltLllkeGity. August, 1884, the plaintiff made application tQ the president of the Lane, & Bodley Company for an adjustment qfMcouiltonvalyes, whicb claim herefusedto ayknowledge or discllss. Thereupon snit was.CQmmeilceil. The Lane & Bodley Company, in their answer, denied the validity of the patent for want of novelty, as being anticipated by publication and patents, and that IJocke was not I4so claiming that any patentable feature there may be in said device 'belongs to them; and subsequently, during the
taking of depositions, "they! filea im" answer, on February, 2, L.886, setting up a claim that there. Was 'all';agreement with the;pluintiff by which all patentable devices (was t<.>. be; tilken.ont.jointly, and.' they had the option to purcha..Qe the exclusive right upo.n. determination of its value by ll.rbitration. The evidence did not sustain theseilverments, and in t.he.depositions the testilnonyof complainant and defendant conflicted throughout. The. court found for complainant. u,gunM Slattery, for complainant. £.. ·M·.Hosea, for defendant. SAGE, J. fhe complainant sues for infringement of his patent, No. 173,653,dated I!'ebruary 15.1876, application filed May 27, 1874,Jor improvement in three-way balanced stop-valves. The invention, which is styled "a new and useful cock for hydraulic elevators," is primarily designed, as is stated in the specifications, "as a means of SO controlling the supply and discharge of the water used for impelling hydraulic lifts or elevators as to enable their upward or downward motion or stoppage ntany desired level, without such nice attention' or manipulation as would:be difficult or impossible to an ordinary dperator, and without arrest or resumption of the flow as would enqanger. the such of the. conduits." The supply and dischal,'ge chamber,P, has, on one side ofit,a service pipe or passage, C, affordIng permanent communication with the hydraulic motor or other engine to be impelled. It communicates at opposite ends with two co-axial pipes, Q and L.The pipe, Q, receives the inlet passage, A, and has it tubular prolongation; J, which enters the chamber, P, and has one or more scallops or indetitations at its edge, which, narrowing inwardly, as at J, constitutegraduatedopenings. The pipe, Q, has two cup packings; the inner one, R, at the junction of the prolongation,J, with the lower end of the pipe, Q, constituting the seat of the inlet valve. The other packing, R, occupies the outermost extremity of the pipe, Q, and incloses the balancing piston. The inner erid of the balancing piston is, by means of a rQd, connected to a convex valve, F, which is the inlet valve proper, and is prolonged downward so as to form a cylinder, M. F and M enter and play within R, which therefore serves as the inlet valve seat.M is near its lower end encircled by a packing and discharge'valve leather, or some yielding and impervious material, of such dimensions as to be capable of filling the discharge pipe, L; the interior diameter of which is slightly greater than that oithe cylinder, M, as is also the terior diameter of the prolongation, J.. The cylinder, M, is prolonged below the packing valve, S,and has one or more notches, h, similar in form and function to the notches, (or indentations,) j, of the tubular longation; J. The distance between the valves, F and S, Of, in other words, the length of the cylinder, M, so much exceeds that oBhe her; P, as to secure a sensible or sustained duration. respectively, oithe receiving, the closed and the discharging conditions of the apparatus, thereby rendering unnecessary such exact movementQf the operating rod asw6u1d be· necessary if the interval between the supply and the. dis-
charge were only momentary, or of slight duration. All the prolongations are in the direction of the flow, and the packings, Rand S, are so arranged and secured relatively to the notches,j and h, as not to come in contact with them, and be torn or mutilated. When the apparatus is closed, if it be desired to elevate the platform, the operating rod is depressed until the convex valve, F, passing into the indented prolongation, J, admits water to the engine, slowly at first, but in constantly increasing quantity, until fully spent;· occupation of the discharge pipe, L, by the packing valve, meantime preventing any escape of water from the engine. The platform is brought to rest by reversing the rod, and lowered by elevating it. The specification sets forth that no claim is made. to graduated valve openings broadly, nor to any specific form thereof apart from the described special combination with soft or yielding packing without contact. The claims are as follows: opposite sides of a permanent service pas"(1) Thechatnber, P, sage, C, two other passages, Q and L, having a common axis, and terminating at said chamber in seats, Rand E, for supply and discharge valves, l!' and S, whose distance apart is greater than that of said seats; said s'npply-valve and discharge seat being prolonged in direction of the.flow, so as to independent control of the supply ltnd discharge. and their separation by a period of complete closure, substantially as and for the objects designated. (2) The tubular projection, J, cylinder, M, having graduations, j and h, packing, R, and packingvalves,S. arranged to operate without attrition from each other, Bubstantially I'S specified. (3) Xn combin.ation with the duplex valve, plunger, and the three-way passage, SUbstantially as described, I claim the balancing piston, N, adopted to operate as set forth." The defendant contends' (1) That the cOhlplainant's patent is invalidated by the description contained in Rankin's Manual of \-be Steam-Engine and Other Prime Movers, (5th Ed., London, 1870,) beginning on page 140, of a minepumping engine designed by M. Junker. Reference is also made to page 128 of the same volume for description of cup-packing. In the mine engine the piston-valve is shown in the drawing, and described as notched at the edges, in order that the and closing of the port may take place by degrees; the water flowing partially through the notches for 'a Bhorttime before and after the piston arrives at the edge of the ports." Conceding that we have here what would anticipate a claim for the graduated valve openings shown in the drawings and described in the specification of complainant's patent, we have only to recall that the complainant expressly disclaimed graduated valve openings, either broadly or of nny specific form, excepting in combination, as has already been stated; nor does he claim the cup-packing, excepting in combination. Upon full consideration the court does. not find any description in Rankin anticipating, complainant's patented improvement. The patents to Dunlap, October 29, 1872, No. 132,526, for improvement in balanced valves, and to Vaughn, September 30, 1873, No. 143,266, for improvement in balanced valves for hydraulic cranes, relied upon by defendant, do not anticipate the aomplainant's improvement. (2) The defendant's second contention is that the complainant's
LANE & BODLEY CO.
provement does not display invention; that, if anything more than an aggregation of old elements, it is only the product of skill, or, as counsel expressed it, the natural outgrowth of experience with local conditions, embodying mere mechanical modifications of existing and wellknown appliances. The court does not concur in this view. The parts of the combination claimed were old, but the combination was new, Ilnd it produced a new and useful result. The problem was to produce a valve which would obviate the "water-ram," and relieve against the excessive wear from muddy water. The complainant was, when the improvement covered by the patent in suit was perfected. in the employment, as general designer and draughtsman, of Lane & Bodley, a partnership engaged at the city of Cincinnati in the construction and sale of hydraulic elevators and other machinery. The water-ram could be prevented by the use of various devices, as by the use of graduated openings not differing substantially from that described by Rankin in the work already referred to, or by a disk-valve, described in the testimony. The great difficulty was to overcome the wear and tear of the packing by the gritty particles in the water whenever it became muddy by reason of a rise in the Ohio river, the source of the city's supply. After many trials and failures, the construction patented to complainant was hit npon, and satisfactory; and it was satisfactory because of a it, and it alone, new, and, therefore, unknown, combination, which was an invention. The evidence does not sustain the claim that the invention was not the sole production of the complainant, but the joint produdion of himself and P. P. Lane, senior member of the finn of Lane & Bodley. The burden of proof is upon the defendant. Lane testifies that the notches --referred to in the specification also as "scallops or indentations"-at the edge of the tubular prolongation, J, were determined upon by his direction; that the indication of the change was made upon the drawing by his instruction; and that he thinks, but is not positive, that he made the marks upon the drawing showing the change to be made. Locke denies all these statements, and testifies that he devised his improvement before the time of his engagement as draughtsman with Lane & Bodley. Without entering upon the details of the testimony, it is sufficient to say that the court finds the fact to be that the invention was made by the complainant. Having found that the improvement displays invention, and that it was made by the complainant, the next question is whether the defendant has established that it has either an indefeasible license or shop-right or an equitable part ownership of the title. This defense is made principally upon the amendoo answer filed February 2, 1886, the original anllwer having been filed June 24,1885. The original answer set up that the improvement was made by complainant while in the employ of Lane & Bodley, under full salary, and under obligation to give to that firm his time and skill in designing, perfecting, and embodying in working drawings, construction, and improvements in machinery, etc., in the line of their manufactures, and that it was carried into public use by them with the full knowledge of complainant, and without his objection, or