ENTERPRISE MANUF'G 00. OF PENNSYLVANIA 11. SARGENT.
ENTERPRISE MANUF'G CO. OFPENNSYLVANJA V. SARGENT
(Circuit Court, D. Connectteut December 23,1891.)
PATENTS FOR. INVENTIONS-INPRINGEMENT-VIOLATION OF INJUNOTION-CONTEMPT.
Defendants, having been enjoined from infringing the 1st, 2d, and 6th claims of letters patent No. 271,398, issued January 30, 1888, to J obn G. Baker, for a machine for mincing meat, etc., constructed a machine in exact accordance with those claims, but having in addition thereto a detachable frame containing .three stationary blades which the meat is pressed by the forcing screw, thus cutting it to some extent before it reaches the rotating knives.. Plainti1r moved for an attachment for contempt, on the ground that tbe de-:.achable frame was of no practical value, but defendants filed affidavits alleging that with tbe attacbment from 21 to 38 per cent. more meat was cut than without it. Held, that tbis presented a new qUElstion, which could not be tried in a contempt proceeding.
In Equity. Motion to attach for a contempt in violating an injunction. Charles Howson and Charles E. Mitchell, for plaintiff. John I(. Beach and Edmund Wetmore, for defendants.
SHIPMAN, J. This is a motion for attachment of the defendants for contempt for the alleged violation of an injunction against the infringement of the 1st, 2d, and 6th claims ot: letters patent No. 271,398, dated January 30, 1883, to John G. Baker, assignor to the plaintiff, for a machiue for mincing meat and other plastic substances. The construction of the machines which were the subject of the controversy upon the previous hearings, the principle and characteristics of the patent, and the nature ofthe difference between the patentee's device and its predecessors, were explained in 28 Fed. Rep. 18.5, and 34 Fed. Rep. 134. The new machine of the defendants, which is the subject of the motion, is the Baker machine, made in exact accOrdance with the pat'ent, so far as the 1st, 2d, and 6th claims are concerned, with the lowing addition: The forward edge of the end of the forcing ecrew is enlarged into a lip having a sharp edge. Between the outer end of the forcing screW and the rotating knife is a stationary, but detachable, frame, inwbich are three stationary blades. As the forcing screw re;volves and delivers meat, the meat is, before it reaches the rotating knife, cut, toa certain extent, between the sharp edge of the lip of the screw and the three stationary blades within the frame. The theory of plaintiff, when it brought the motion, was that the three-bladed detachable frame ,was a thing of no practical value or importance, and was not expected,by its makers, to be of assistance in cutting; and, furthermore; that it could be taken out of the machine and laid aside without afl'ectz. ing the usefulness of the structure. The affidavits of the defendants strongly tend to the conclusion that it aids in the cutting of meat. The tests which the defendants made were, if accurate, to the effect that the new machine delivered, with the same number of revolutions and under the same circumstances, from 21 to 38 per cent. more cut meat than the unaltered Baker machine, and, for the purpose of the decision of this motion, I must assume that the addition of the three-bladed frame en-
abled the machine to cut a substantially greater amount of meat in the and without known increase of power. It thus appears that the question has shifted from the one which was presented upon the plaintifi:s affidavits, and is now, as to the status of the modified Sargent machine, upon the theory that the defendants' affidavits aretrue.'The:principleofthe Baker machine was a different that of its predecessors. Whereas the Miles machines relied uporrc\ltting by knives,before the meat reached the perforated plate, and permitted that plate 'alld its cutter to perform only a minor part in the operation, the Baker machine relied entirely upon the knife and perforMed plate at the end of the case, the screw acting merely as e forcing device, and the new territorywhich the invention oCCllpied was pointed out with great distinctness in the Baker patent. In the preceding hearnovelty of the Baker machine, and ings in the case the whether the Sargent machine, as then constructed, was a Baker or a Miles machine, were ,the questions before the court, which was not considering unknown modifications of either device. The defendants now insist that a new question, involving an heretofore undecided construction of the patent, is presented by the motion, and that until that question has been decided there can be no ground for suggestion that they have been guilty of contempt. On the other hand, the plaintiff says that the question is, can the defendants escape the charge of infringement, and of willful disregard of. the injunction order, by adding to an exactcl?PY of the Baker machine, so far as the 1st, 2d, and 6th claims are coricerned, a cutting device,. at the end of the forcing screw, which is not needed, and which is not the ,means by which the cutting of meat for domestic purposes is substantially accomplished, or upon which reliance is placed for the .success of the machine? The plaintiff says, in machine is simply an addition to the Baker brief, that the new mach1ne of an unnecessary cutter. Notwithstanding the character of the plainti6'ssuggestions, it is true that this is a motion for contempt for violation of an injunction order, and that the former opiJl,ions of the court were not directed to the structure as llOW modified, and that, to a certain extent, a new question has arisen which requires the. court to re-examine the self.imposed limitations of the patent. A motion for attachment for contempt is not adapted to the trial.of a question of this kind. I am therefore of opinion that the motion should. be denied, but without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to file a supplemental bill in the original suit, which is still pending, or to file an original bill, as it may be advised. AUiB v. StoweU, 16 Fed. Rep. 242; 8 Rob. Pat. Q49.
NORTHROP iI. KEIGHLEY.
et al. v.
(C£rcu(t Oourt, W. D. Pennsvlivania. December 10. 189L)
PATBN'l'8 rOB INVlINTIONS-INJ'BINGEMENT-MBTALLlO CEILINGS.
Letters patent No. 158,881. issued January 19.1875. to Henry Adler. are for a metallic,eeiling composed of panels of cold-rolled sheet-iron with turned-up edges. fitted into squares formed of furring strips nailed to, the joists. and resting loosely covered by a broad cap upon fastenings attached to these strips, the edges fastened to the strips. The specifications state that it is the object of the invention to provide, for the expansion ,and contraction of the panels. and that, theretofore, metallic panels had been fastened rigidly to the fUrrIng'strlps. Held. that the pat,;. ent was not infringed by a ceiling composed of panels with fiat edges, which were nailed rigidly to the strips, and covered by a secured by nails pusing · tween the edges of the panels. ' Letter&patent No. 830,915, issued November 24, 1885, to Albert Northrop. claim: "In a metallic ceiling. the combination, with corrugated sheet-metal panels arranged to form an intervening space between tbeir adjacent sides, and thereby allow of their expansi'ln and contraction in all directions, of a mOUlding strip overlapping the adjacent edges of the panelS, and devices passing through the moulding strip between the edges of the panels for securing the strip and panels to the ceiling," Held, that this was a mere mechanical adaptation of the Adler invention to the use of corrugated panels, and the patent is therefore void. '
S.UIE-PATENTABLE INVBN'l'ION-MBCHANIOAL ADAPTATION.
W. 'pakewelt crc Sons, for complainants. D. F. PaUerson, for defendimts.
Suit for infringement of a patent.
REED, J. The bill alleges infringement ofletterspatent No. 158,881, issued to Henry Adler, January 19. 1875, and now held by complainants" being for an improvement in metallic ceilings. The specification states that it relates t.o that class of ceilings known as metallic ceilings, "andco'J;ls,ists in constructing ceilings in panels, and from black coldrolled sheet-iron,and in securing the panels in position by means of secreted ;cleats and caps, .or ornamental side and corner pieces, so that the raeans.employed for attaching the metal ceiling to the under side of the. rafters are completely hidden from view." The inventor further says: 'class have been mude from galvanized sheet"Heretofore. ceilings iron screwed thegirliers by screws and similar attachments, which were IIpparent in the finished panels. and which held the panels rigidly. without allOWing for expansion or contraction. The object of my invention is therefore to provide a fastening that wiIJ admit of thf'l necellsary expansion and contractioll of the panel, that will be entirely hidden when the ceiling is finished, arid that can be reaqjJy and cheaply applied." , And again says: "Furthermore. the method of attachment. which has been by screwing the panels to the joists direct. did not leave room forthe expansion or contraction panel. and was such that the fastenings shoWed in the completed ceilings." As described by the inventor, the ceiling is constructed by fastening to the joists cleats or furring strips, forming a square or other pattern similar to the. ,panel proposed to be used. .The panel, formed of sheetiron. with the edges turned up to form flanges, is then inserted between