CONSOLIDATED TIME-LOCK CO.
YALE & TOWNE MANUF'G Co. et al. v. CoNSOLIDATED TIME-LoCK Co
(Circuit Oourt, 8. D. Ohio. W; D. 'May 16,1889.]
PATENTS FOR lNVENTIONS-VALIDITy-TIME-LoCKS.
The first and seventh claims of reissued letters patent No. 8,550. granted Jan uary 1. 1879. to the Yale Lock Man ufactllring Company. as assignee of Samuel Little. for an improvement in time-locks held valid; and the seventh claim held not an expansion of the original patent, on the authority of Lock 00, v. Bm'kshi'l'e Nat. Bank, 17 Fed. Rep. 53l, and Yale Lock Oo.v. New Ha'IJenBa'IJ. Bank, 32 Fed. Rep. 167. . Defendant's lock was substantially identical the lock of the, defendant iii Yale Lock 00. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, except that in the latter there was an additional dog, controlled by the time mechanism, which dog added noth· ing to the efficiency or value of the lock. The defense of tbat c:ase sumed by a lock company. or its president, who afterwards became president of defendant, and all the questions presented here were presented in that case. On the authority of that case, held, that defendant's lock was an infringement.
In Equity\ '. . .', , ' ,' . ,,' " ' Suit by the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company and others against the Consolidated Time-Lock Company,for the infringement of a patent. Wetmore &. Jenner, for complainants. . W. a.' CXJchra/n and Parkinson kParkingon, for defendant· . SAGE, J. This suit is for the infringement of the first and seventh claims of reissued letters patent No. 8,550, granted January 1879, to the Yale Lock Manufacturing Company, as assignee of Samuel Little, for an improvement in time-locks. This patent has been repeatedly sustained by the courts. The first 'and seventh claims were held valid by Judge SHIPMAN in Yale Lock'Manufg 00. v. Norwich Nat. Bank, and Bame v. Nw Haven Sav. Banle, 6 Fed. Rep. 377; by Judge LOWE'LL, in Yale Lock Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, 17 Fed. Rep. 531, and again by Judge SHIPMAN in Yale Lock Co. v. Nw Haven Sav. Bank, 32 Fed. Rep. 167, decided September 10, 1887, upon petition for rehearing. In this case claims 1 and 7 were considered in the light of Miller v. Brus8CXJ., 104 U. S. 350, and of subsequent cases; and Judge SHIPMAN, concurring with Judge LOWELl" in Yale Lock Co. v. Berkshire Nat. Bank, cited above, that both claims were valid, and particularly that the s,eventh claim of the reissued patent was not an undme expansion of the original patent. Upon the question of infringement there is no maferial difference petween the lock manufactured by the defendant in' this 'case and that used by the defendant in the case -of Yale Lock 00. v. Berkshire Nat ...Bank. The time mechanism il'l sanle in both locks. In the Berkshire lock hcontrols' two'dogs, ill the defendant's one; but theextrli dog in lock adds nothing to its efficiency or value:, ticulars the two locks are substantially idtJilticaL ,. Itw.as 'true :in:the Berkshire lock, 8S it is ill the deferidant's'iock, that afferthe lever"has moved into !the position the dog .is stilUield in the Jocking
position by the supporting mechanism, until the latter is moved by the combination lock. The· defense of the Yale Lock Company, case .against the Berkshire National Bank was assumed by the Hall Safe Lock Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio, or by Mr. Hall, its president, who subsequently became president of the defendant company, which carried on lock and mechanism now d/;timed to be an inthe manufacture of fringement. . All the questions presented here were presented in that case, and it was decided ad¥ersely to the defendant. I have read the opinions of Judge SHIPMAN and of Judge LOWELL, and, aside from considerations of comity, which, however, I am not at all inclined to di!lregard, have found them so entirely satisfactory that Ithink it toeriter into further details. Upon the authority of the cases decided by them, a decree for an injunctiQn and account, with costs, will be entered against the defendant.
CoNSOLIDATED OIL-WELL PACKER Co. 'l1. GALEY.
The first claim of letters patent, Issued February 7.1865, to John R. Cross, for improvements in packing for oil-wells, was carefully limited to a packer in which the rings which compre,sll or packing material were operated from the top of the well by screw-rods. lIeld, that the second claim' of reissued letters No. 7,772, dated July 8,1877, which omits that limitation. is an undue expansion of the original. It is unimportant 1n a reissue issued 11 years after the date of the patent that different means for operating the rings were stated in the original specifications, as they were not claimed.
LETTERS-PAQKERS FOR OIL,-WELLS.
8. SAME. -
Letters patent issued February 6,1866, to Robinson & Strong. described a packer composed of a cone which ,was placed upon the elld of one of the sections of tubing, which could be made apart or attached to the tube, and a concave of elastic material. attached to the upper tubing, which, when the upper tubing reached the cone, was by its aid pressed.out against the sides of the well. In the specifications, of reissued letters No. 8,786. dated July 1, 1879, the cone became an enlargement or unyielding. band or ring, and the concave became a ring, or band ofelas-tic m.8terin.1. which, as the upper section moved downward. was compressed or expanded. Held, that the reissue was void for enlargement of claiml\.
Claim 1 of letters patent issued to Francis Martin September 12. 1865, was: "In packing the tubes of oil and other deep wells. connecting the ends of the packing or apparatus to separate or disconnected sections of the well-tube. so as to inclose the joint within said packing device." Claim 2. such separate sections of the well-tube to each other by means of a coupling, one end of which slides on one of the sections." Claim 4 of reo issued letters No. 7.244. dated July 25. 1876, was: "In combination with the eduction tube, * * * an elastic or flexible packing, l!o rim or shoulder upon the eduction tube, and a corresponding rim upon the packer support, whereby when the eduction tube is removed from t110 well, the rim or shoulthe packer support." .Held, ders shall engage with each that the is not an the secoIid'claim ofthe originaL
In Equity.' Bill to restrain infringement of letters patent.