NORTON 'OOOlt CltECK &
CO. tI. HALL.
combination. 'Loom Co. v. HiiJgins, 105 U. S. 580. Capewell made four claims in his application for the original patent. These were reduced on adverse references and rulings to two. One was for the combination of a rammer and a hollow stem provided with claws for extracting nails, substantially as shown and described; the other was for the combination of the hollow stem, stationary claw, pivoted claw; fulcrum, -fulcrum-spring, and sliding rammer, all operating substantially as described. In the reissue the claim is for a nail-extractor provided with '8 movable jaw and fulcrum, in combination with a percussive device, constructed and operating substantially as described. The specification of the reissue is substantially the same as that of the original, and the claims of both are for devices and operations of devices described. The names for devices in each must signify the same things. The percussive device ofthe claim in the reissue is the one described, and is the hollow stem and rammer of each of the claims of the original. The movable jaw and fulcrum of the reissue are the claws and fulcrum, including the spring, of the second claim of the original, and the claws of the first. The claims of the reissue do not appear to go outside of or beyond the original in any respect. The reissue, therefore, covers nothing which was left out of the original, and consequently nothing which was abandoned in acceptinRthe original. No reason is shown for the reissue; but it was applied for within 11 few months, andwas no broader than the original. Under thefle circumstances excuses for the reissue do not appear to be necessary. Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S.40, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073. These views accord with what are understood to have been· those of Judge SHIPMAN in Maltby v. COnverse,! and of Judge W,ALLACE in Maltbyv. Tool 0>.,1 upon this same patent. Let there be a decree for a perpetual injunction and an account, a<:cording to the prayer of the bill. .
NORTON DOOR CHECK
SPltING Co. t1. HALL
Oourt, D. lrfaa8aehu8etta.
PATENTS FOR INVENTJONB-ImINGEMENT-PREUMINARY INJUNCTION.
Letters patent No. 144.926, November 25.1873. to F. H. Richards for an improvement in door-springs. describe a cylinder in which isfitt.ed a piston. and at the end of which is. a screw having a longitudinal groove ofvllorYing.area. 'l'hepressure of the piston compresse.s the air in the cylinder. and 'partially checks the motion imparted to the door by a. spring. but not entirely; owing to the slow escape of the air through the groove. The escape of tl.ir ie regulated ,by adjusting the screw. Defendant's device conei,sts of a cylinder and adjusta1?le valve at its end. and apieton. A device prior to that of Richof a tube ontbe door inwbich was a piston.' A hole at the eild of: the tube was covered. but not closely, by a valve resting on the. end of a of the vent being regulated by the s.crew., A weight on the piston,w&8auspended fro lll a cord Which passed over a sheave to the lintel to
which it was attached. Hdd, that in view of such prior device, and of the Corliss dash-pot. the question of infringement was so doubtful that a preliminary injunction should be denied.
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. Suit by the Norton Door Check & Spring Company against Henry J. Hall and others to restrain the infringement ofletters patent No. 144,926, November 25, 1873, to F. H. Richards for an improvement in doorsprings. The invention is fully described in Norton Door Oheck &- Spring Co. v. Elliott Pneumatic Door-Oheck Co. et al., 26 Fed. Rep. 320, except that in the cylinder cap there is a threaded hole, in which is located a screw having a longi.tudinal V-shaped groove on one side. The area of the groove increases towards the point of the screw, so that the aperture formed by it may be increased or decreased by withdrawing or further inserting the screw, thus regulating the escape of air. In the Sargent door-check, manufactured by defendants, there is a cylinder combined with a piston adapted to move in it. As the door opens, the piston. is entirely withdrawn from the cylinder, but as it closes, the piston enters the cylinder, and compresses the air in it. At the closed end of the cylinder is an adjustable valve, which permits the slow escape of the air.' The doorcheck used in Colt's armory in 1863 consisted of a tube attached at about the middle of the width of the door .on the side facing thejambs in clo&ing. Within the tube was a weight suspended .at the end of a cord, which passed over a sheave near the top of the door, and thence horiwntally to the under side of the lintel to which it was attached. At the . lower end of the weight was a piston, which fitted the tube so as to make it substantially air-tight, and at the bottom of the tube was a hole, covered by a poppet-valve, which, on the descent of the weight and pis·ton, nearly closed the hole, so as to permit the air to escape slowly. A vertical screw, on the point of which the bottom 'ofthe valve rested when in its lowest position, prevented the valve from falling entirely to its seat, and by adjusting the screw the rapidity of the escape of the air could be regulated. Chauncey Smith and George O. G. Coale, for complainant. Benjamin F. ThUj'ston and John K. Beach, for defendants COLT, J. In the case of the complainant company against the Elliott Door-Check Company (26 Fed. Rep. 320) this court sustained the validity of the second claim of the Richards patent, No. 144,926, lor aniInprovement in door-springs. The claim was as follows: "The grooved screw, I, for adjusting the vent, in combination with the packing, H; piston, G, tube, D, and coiled&p,ring, F, or equivalent, substantially as herein shown and described." In the opinion in the Elliott CUBe the court said: "We must also bear in mind that Richards was the first to organize a machine to check the motion of a door before it closes, and thus pr¢vent slamming; a.nd that, therefore, his patent is entitled to a broad 'con.struction." In the present case I am referred to not before me in the Ell'iott G:zse. An examination' these devices has led me to the that I may have given too broad a constru<;tion ...
8TANDA,RD FOLDING BED CO. t1. KEELER.
to the Richards patent in the other suit. Indeed, I may say that the Corliss air dash-pot, and the exhibit Colt's armory door-check, now for the first time introduced as evidence, have raised a doubt in my mind as to the soundness of the construction put upon the second claim of the Richards patent in the Elliott suit. From a working exhibit introduced by the defendants it would seem to make little or no difference so far as checking the motion of the door before slamming, whether the adjustable. screw is placed at the side or bottom of the cylinder, provided the piston does not fit too closely the bore of the cylinder. In other words, I am not clear in my own mind that there is not found in the Corliss dash-pot the substance of what is described in the second claim of the Richards patent. Further, in the exhibit Colt's armory door-check it is admitted that the device consists of a cylinder, a pistou, equivalent, an adjustable vent, a weight, and a valve, which permits the air to enter the cylinder when the weight is raised by the opening of the door.. If we substitute a spring for the weight, the combination of devices here shown comes close' to those found in the second claim of Richards' patent. For the purpose of deciding this motion I am not called upon to critically compare the Richards device with the Corliss dash-pot or the Colt door-check. It is sufficient for me to say at this time that, after hearing the arguments of counsel, and upon a careful examination of the evidence and exhibits,a doubt is cast upon my mind whether, in view of the prior state of the art, the defendants infringe the second claim of the Richards patent. It is my duty, therefore, to deny this motion, and to postpone the determination of the questions now raised to final hearing. Motion denied.
STANDARD FOLDING BED
(Oircuit Oourt, D · .MassachusettlJ. February 20,1889.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRINGEMENT-TERRITORIAI, RIGHTB OF ABSIGNll:EB.
One who purchases a patented article from the owner of the patent-right for a certain territory, has no right to sell the same in the course of trade.in ter·' ritory for which another owns the exclusive territorial right.
In Equity. On motion for preliminary injunction. Bill by the Standard Folding Bed Company againstC. P. Keeler and -others for the infringement of a patent. E. Y. Rice, for complainant. J. H. Taylor and Browne &< Browne, for defendants. COLT, J. Under the agreed statement of facts it is admitted that the .complainant is 'tlie oWller of the exclusive right under letters' patent ,granted to Lyman W. Welch, numbered 311,623 and 364,875, for improvements in folding beds, for certain territory, including the states of :New York and Massachusetts; that the Welch Folding Bed Company, of