than was previously included in his original patent. If this means only that the claimof.the re-issue is broader than the <}laim of the original, it amounts to nothing. If it means, in the language of the statute, that the re-issue is not "for the same invention," as those words are interpreted, the defence cannot prevail. No other defence set up in the answer is proved. No defence of abandonment is Bet up. All the views presented on the fpart of the defendant have been considered, and there must be a decree for the plaintiff for an account of profits, ,and an ascertainment of damages and a perpetual injunction, with costs:
(Circuit Oourt, W. D. Pennsylvania.
March 28, 1881.)
INFRINGEMENT-DIVISION OF DEVICE.
A patent cannot be defeated by dividing a patented device into two parts, which, when combined, produce the same result in sUbstantially the same way. Wheeler v. Olipper Mower <J Reaper 00.6 Fish. 2.
No. 7,583. Re-issue No. 7,583, for an improvement in coffee-mills, held, infringed. Strobridge v. Lindsay, Sterritt <J 00. 2 FED. REP. 692.-[ED.
In Equity. Sur rule for an attachment against defendants for contempt. Takewell « Kerr, for rule. B. F. Thurston and Geo. H. Christy, for defendants. ACHESON, D. J. In this case, the court, upon final hearing, held that the coffee-mill complained of, manufactured by Landers, Frary & Olark, and sold by the defendants, infringed the first claim of the plaintiff's re-issued patent, viz.: "A coffee or similar mill, having a detachable hopper and grinding-shell formed in a single piece and suspended within the
STROBRIDGE V. LINDSAY.
box by 'the upper part of the hopper, or a. flange thereon, substantially as and for the purpose specified."· Accordingly, onMa.y 31, 1880, a writ of injunction was :lssued against the defendants and duly served upon them. The case is now before the court on a rule granted upon the defendants to show cause why an attachment'should not issue against them for violating the injunction. From the affidavits now submitted it appears that aftElr the opinion of the court was ,flIed the defendants returned to Landers, Frary & Clark all the coffee-mills they had on hand, of the pattern complained of,a.nd Mterwardsreceived in exchange from the manufacturers other coffee'.lmills, constructed like the exhibit nbw produced, and Jesignated the "Lloyd coffee-mill." These latter mills defendants have sold and; are now selling. The plaintiff complains that these mills embody his invention equally with those formerly sold by the defendants. This is denied by the defendants, who allege that the "Lloyd lioffee-mill" differs essentially from those mills in that it does not have a detachable hopper and grinding-shell formed in a single piece,' but, on the contrary, that the hopper and grindthereof are separate constructions. It is certainly true that in the "Lloyd coffee-mill" the hopper and grindingshell are cast separately, but they are mechanically attached together before they are suspended within the box. This union is thus effected: The hopper is provided with' two wire pins cast in it, one on each side of the lower opening, and the lower end of the hopper has an annular shoulder' around it, against which the grinding-shell is placed. The grinding-shell has a lug on each side, corresponding in location with the pins of the hopper, with holes for their reception. The hopper and grinding-shell are securely and firmly united by inserting the annular flange of the latter into the lower end of the hopper, and the pins of the hopper into the holes in the lugs of the grinding-shell, and then bending the pins sidewise. Why, since the injunction was granted, have Landers t
.See 2 FED. REP. 692.
Frary & Clark made the above-described change in their coffee-mills? It cannot be shown, and, indeed, it is nof: pretended, that the change is an improvement to the mill, or that thereby the cost of manufacture is lessened, or any other advantage is gained or useful purpose subserved. Manifestly the sole object is to produce a mill of which it can be affirmed that the hopper and grinding-shell are not cast integral, or formed in.a single piece literally. But "the letter killeth;" and if the justice of the case is not to be sacrificed, regard must be had to the spirit rather than the phraseology of Strobridge's first claim. Truly the plaintiff's success was a barren victory, if by such an alteration as the one4ere adopted the injunction of this court can be evaded. But the must fail of its purpose. The change is but colorable. Although cast in two pieces, yet when put together for use the hopper and grinding-shell are substantially and for all practicable purposes "formed in a single piece." If authority is needed for the proposition that a patent cannot be defeated by dividing the patented device into two parts, which, when produce the same result in substantially tpe same way, it will be found in Wheeler v. Clipper Mower d: Reaper Co. 6 Fisher, 2. The affidavits on the part of the defendants, filed in answer to this rule, so often refer to the "French mill," that I have again given it the best and most careful examination and study of which I am capable. The result is that I am not only confirmed in the opinion that that mill did not anticipate Strobridge's invention, but I am satisfied that it is not the prototype of the "Lloyd coffee-mill." The following clear and, I think, exact statement in respect to the. "French mill" occurs in the affidavit of Mr. Reese, the plaintiff's expert witness. He says: "In the 'French mill' the grinding-shell is not united or fastened in any way to the hopper; but, on the contrary, it is a loose and detached piece, which is held in its place and relation to the hopper by a metallic strap or step, bent to the shape of, and extending across and below, the said shell, and fastened
STBOBIUDGE V. LINDSAY.
to the bottom of the hopper,at the sides of the grinding-shell by wood screwS. In the sides of the loose grinding-shell are grooves or scores, and the step passing through these grooves keeps the shell from turning with the grinding-nut. The step is provided with a. central hole or socket, in which the lower end of the grinding-shaft is placed. The is supported by the cover above, and supports the grindingshell, and hence the purpose of the step, is not to support it, but to tll.-ke the circular and latera.l thrust or strain off the grinding-shell. " There exists, then, in the French mill 8. combination of three distinct and indispensable pieces, viz., the hopper,:the and the metallio strap or step. The latter is an essential element of the oombination. Remove it and there :remain a suspended hopper and grinding-shell, but the mill is inoperative. Now, Strobridge dispensed with the metallio strap or step, and for the first time in the history of the art produced an operative ooffee-mill having a detaohable hopper and grinding-shell formed in a single pieoe, and suspended within the box by the upper part of the hopper, or a flange thereon. In my judgment the Lloyd ooffee.mill infringes the first olaim of the plaintiff's patent equally with the mill previously manufatcured by Landers, Frary & Clark, and sold by the defeudants. I am, however, satisfied from the affidavits of the defendants that hitherto they have acted in good faith to the oourt, and are not ill wilful contempt. Therefore, the present rule for an attachment will not be enforced. The rule is discharged for the reason just assigned, but it is ordered that the defendants pay the costs of the rule and proceedings ihereon. 't'.6,no.r.-88
BATE REFRIGERA.TING CO. v. TaFFE! and others.
(OircuU Gourt,1J. New Jersey. January 19, 1881.)
'7,643'-IMPRoV'EMENTB IN Am COOLING AND DIBTRIDUTING APPA,RATUs-N6VELTY.:'.' ' Re-issued letter/! patent No. 7,643, for" improvements in air cooling and distributil).g, apparatus," claimed, inter alia: "In an air
cooler, or apparatus for Cooling :carcasses, etc., the combination of a fan-blower, or its equivalent,an ice-chest, or equivalent, and one or more pipes or conduits, 'which equally distribute the air within the place or apartment to be cooled,substantially as and for the purpose set forth." Held, from acoilliideration of the state of the art at the time of the invention, and from the specifications and claims of the patent itself, that its prooial! design was to cool apartments; that1!ha same was fairly applicable ,t!?enclosl,lres constructed for, the 'tation of meat, and that a new and useful result was thereby reached. -[ED. ", .
Dickerson, for complainant. GUYrge Gifford, fordeferidants. NIXON, D. J. The cOmplainant corporation files its bill of complaint against the defendants for infringing certain reissued letters patent No. :7,643, dated April 24, 1877, for "improvements in air-cooling -and distributing apparatus." The original letters patent, numbered' 44,731, and dated October, 1864, were granted to one Moses J. Kelley, for an "improved atmosphere cooler." Orie of the defences set up in the answer was that the re-issue was not for the same invention. It was not, urged at the hearing, and, on comparison of the two letters patent, I find no valid grounds for such a defence. The subject-matter of the controversy has reference to one of the most valuable inventions of modern times; to-wit, the method of transmitting slaughtered animals for long distances over oceans and continents, and preserving, at the same time, the sweetness and purity of the' meat as an arti· cle of human food. Whilst a beneficent Providence has fur. nished to the world an abundant supply of everything need· ful for the material wants of all His creatures, He has left it ,Dickerson