KAMPFE V. AI.OE.
793
three times the amount found by the verdict,which makes the actual damages $210, for which judgment will be rendered; for the reason that defendant's infringement appears to me from the proof to have been a flagrant violation of plaintiff's rights. If, after the controversy in the patent-office had been decided in plaintiff's favor, and the patent awarded to him, defendant had offered to sell to plaintiff the machines he had on hand at cost, or for a fair manufacturer's profit, he wOllid have placed himself in a far different position before the court from that in which he appears in the light of the proof in this case.
KAMPFE
et al.
'D. ALOE
(Oircuit COU'I't, S. D. New York.
April 28, 1888.)
t.
PATENTS FOIt INvENTIONS-INFJUNGEMENT-RAZORS.
The:fltst claim of letters patent No. 229,127, of June 22; tRaO, to John Heit· ner, fotanimprovement upon the Mon'ks razor, descrilied: in letters patent No. 206,473, of July 30,1878, to John Monks, is: "The combination, with the cutting blade, of a guard-plate constructed in sections, which are hinged to fold on each other,-one adapted to support the cutting blade and the remainder forming a bandle,-interstices at the junction of the blade section with the handle sections, and means for holding the blade llections substantially ats right angle to the handle sections, and holding the latter substan· tially flush with each other, the whole constructed and adapted for use." Held not infringed by the Aloe razor, the sections of whose guard-plate are ,not so hinged as to fold on each other. . The second claim of said Heitner patent is: "The combination, with the cutting blade, of a guard-plate constructed in sections, which are hinged to· gether, and constructed with the stops for regulating the positions of the sections, one section adapted to support theeutting blade,and the remainder forming a handle, interstices at the junction of the blade section with the handle sections, and the spring for the cutting blade and holding the sections in a spread, or unfolded conditIOn, the whole constructed and adapted for use." Held not infringed by the Aloe razor; the latter not having a spring which permits the sections, when not in use, to be folded together
2.
SAME.
In Equity. Louis
Jarne8 A. Hudson, for respondents.
Bill for infringement.
SHIPMAN,,--.J. This is a bill in equity to restrain the defendants from the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 229,127, dated June 22, 1880, to John Heitner, for an improved razor. The patented invention is an improvement upon the Monks razor, which is described in letters patent No. 206,473, dated July 30, 1878, to John Monks. 1.'heFontaine razor, first patented in France in 1879, and afterwards in this country in 1881, is of the type of the Monks razor. The Monks razor -consisted of a"blade-holder, which was bent at right angles, one Ellction of which held the blade, and the other served as a handle. The blade was held in place by ears bent around its ends. The cutting edge of the
794'
FEDERAL REPORTER.
blade was adjacent to the angle in the blade-holder, and at this angle the blade-holder had a of interstices which permitted t1>,e escape of the lather. Heitner's object was to turn the rigid and handle into a folding razor-handle. He accomplished it by dividi{lg the plate into three sections,which were hinged together by butt hinges so as to limit their movement, and were so hinged that the part which held the blade folded down upon the section of the handle nearest to the blade, and the third section, or the end of the handle, folded over the b!adeholding section, so as to inclose the blade. The device was then folded together in book form, so that occupied a very small space, and could be safely carried in the vest pocket. When the razor is in use, the sections are retained in :1 rigid position by a spring, which is p'ivoted to the middle section by a rivet, and which can be turned so that its free end rests upon the baek of the, blade'and serves as a brace to keep the blade-holding section in a perpendicular position, the other end bears upon the third section -and serves as a button to hold it in line with the second section, and prevent its folding up. When the razoris not in use, apring ii( t1;lrned at right angles to its former position, and parallel with the folded sides' of the razor case. The invention was and ll;patentable one; but it simply consisted in the method offolding, Il,n9,' when unfolded, of holding the three,seciionsin place by the laterally moving spring. The claims of the patent are as follows: "(1) The combination, ,with tile cutting blade, of a guard-plate constructed in sections, which are hinged to ,fold 'on each other,-one adapted to support tlie cutting' blade;' and the remainder forming a handle,-interstices at the junction of the blade section with the handle sections, and Ihea:ns for holding the bla\!e su at a righ,t angle tothe handle sections. and holding the lij,ttersubstatl,tialJ.y 1l'ush witb.each other, the whole construeted and use, (2) The With the cutting, blade, of a in sections, which are hinged together, and constructed with the stops for regulating the positions of th6' sections,-one section adapted to support-the cutting blade. and the remainder forming a handle,-intel'stices at the junction of the blade section with the handle sectious, and the spring. g. for clamping the cutting blade and holding the sections in a spread or unfolded condition, the whole constructed and adapted for use, substantially as described."
The Aloe razor is also a folding razor, and an improvement upon the Monks implement. It is made of four sections, which a.re hinged to-gether; the first constituting the blade-holder, and the other three constituting the handle. When the razor is in use the three handle sections occupy positions relatively to each other, so that when viewed edgewise they are of Yshape, the blade-holder being arranged across the open end of the Y, the second section being hinged to the blad-e-holder adjacent to the cutting edge of the blade, and the third and fourtl;l:sections being hinged to the opposite edge'ofthe second section, and .extending from third section projecting away the hinging axis in from the blade, and the fourth section .extending towards the blade and terminating at the back of the latter." The. fourth section answers the purpose of the Heitner spring in keeping the blade pressed down in its
AMERICAN BELL TEL.
co.",.
SOUTHERN TEL. CO.
795
place. and preventing any movement of the blade-holdet. When'the razor is to ;be put away, the. second and fourth sections are sprung apart, so as to release the blade-holder from the fingers of the fourth section, the blade-holder drops into line with the second section, and the fourth section drops upon the second section, with which the third section is in lille. The first, second, and third sections are thus in line with each other, and the fourth section lies down upon the second section. The js flattened out, the blade is no longer hel,I in place, and t:1e whole is placed in a shallow box for safe-keeping. The two devices differ in this respect: the blade-retaining spring of the Heitner r:tzor swings laterally, and the two end sections fold upon the third, as the two ends of a sheet of note paper fold upon the middle part of the sheet. The bladeretaining section of the Aloe razor does not swing laterally; it drops upon three sections fall into line with each the second section, while the other, and a flattened device is formed which must be put into a Clise. The Aloe razor is included in the literal terms of each claim of the Heitner patent, and if the claims are to receive a literal qonstruction, there is no doubt of the infringement. I do not think that the patent should be thus construed, and include all folding razors which come within the general language of the claims. The entire scope of the Heitner invention may properly be said to consist in the rnanner in which the Monks raic?r was permitted to be folded. The spring was swung around laterally, and then, in the language of the specification, "the blade section, B', is. folded down on the handle section, B", and the handle section, B"', is folded down upon the whole." The Aloe razor was folded up in a different way, and does not have the advantage of the peculiar and incompactness of the Heitner device. Inasmuch. as the sections of the Aloe razor are not hinged to fold on each other, of the the first claim of the Heitner patent is not infringed; and inasmuch as the Aloe razor does not have a spring which permits the sections, when not in use, to be folded together, the second claim is not infringed. The' bill is dismissed.
[ERICAN BELL TEL.
Co. et al.
11. SOUTHERN
TEL. Co. et al.
(OVrouit Oourt, E ·.D. Arkan8a8. April 21, 1888.)
1.
PATENTS FOR _0
BAMJ!:-LACHES.
The Bell telephone patent, having been held by the supreme court to extend the idea of, and not the mere device for. the transmission of vocal sounds by means of electrical undulations which are similar in form to the air vibrations that constitute the sounds to be transmitted, defendants' instruments, which, although in some respects different from the Bell patent, produce electrical changes corresponding to the vibrations of sound waves caused byarspeech, must be held to be an infringement of the Bell patent. Defendants resisted an application for a prel1minaryinjunction on the that complainants were guilty of laches. Defendants engaged in their prise in the summer of 1885, and this suit was brought in the fall of 1887. For