HUNTINGTON tI. HARTFORD HEEL-PLATE CO.
68ft
HUNTINGTON
v.
HARTFORD HEEL-PLATE CO.
(CircuieCourt, D. Connecticut. November 12, 1888.)
1.
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRTNGEMENT-HEEL-PLATES FOR RUBBERS.
2.
Letters patent No. 296,623, issued April 8,1884, to Frederick Richardson, for a die to attach heel-plates to rubber shoes, describe a die having radially placed planes, inclining in opposite directions, their use being to clinch the prongs of the plate through the heel, also in opposite directions. These planes are depressions in and entirely below the upper surface of the die; their object being to bend and clinch the ends only of the prongs, without bending their heavy bases or plugs, which pass through the heel, as that would tear the material, and admit water. The opposite direction of the prongs, when clinched, was claimed to balance the .clinching strain, and imbed the plate firmly and evenly. .Letters patent No. 369,554, September 6, 1887, issued to Francis H. Richards. .for a machine for l;tttachingheel'plates, descril!e a die with eleva· tions, only two being radially placed, and without any system of regularly arranged planes. The whole prong. which is slepder. without any heavy base, is intentionally bent. Held that, as the latter invention would not, and was not'jntended to; perform the important feature of the former. viz., of bending only. the end of the prong. it was no infringement, although two of the planes'were radially placed. ' Letters pat.ent No. 296,624, of April 8, 1884, to Frederick Richardson. for a machine for attaching heel:plates to rubber shoes. are not infringed by letters patent No. 369,554, of September 6,1887, to l!'rancis H. Richards, for a machine for the same purpose; the peculiar parts of the former being the bolder or guide"andthe mechanism therewith, and neither the plates. clamp. nor spring in the Richards machine, nor the three in combination, beillg equivalent thereto.
SAME-lHcHTNE FOR ATTACHING HEET,-PLATES.
In Equity. On final hearing of bill. Bill by William H. Huntington to restrain the Hartford Heel-Plate COlnpany from the· infringement of two patents, granted to Frederick RIchardson, for a machine and die for attaching heel-plates to rubJ:ler 'A preliminary injunction was granted as to the patent for the die, 'but' refused as to the machine. 33 Fed. Rep. 281. Afterwards the injunction was dissolved on the ground that the die patent had been anticipated by a prior English patent. Id. 838. Wm. Edgar Simonds, for plaintiff. Oharles E. Mitchell, for SHIPMAN, J. This is a 'bill in equity, based upon the alleged infringement oftwo letters patent, Nos. 296,623 and 296,624, which were granted April 8, 1884, to Frederick Richardson; one of said patents being for a die for securing heel-plates to rubber shoes, and the other being for a machine for the same purpose. A motion under this bill for a preliminary injunction was refused as to the machine patent, and was granted as to the die patent, but that injunction was afterwards dissolved. The opinion upon the motion stated theimportant faets, which had then been disclosed, in regard to each patent, each invention, and the alleged infringing devices. 33 Fed. Rep. 281, 838. Nothing is required to be added in regard to the questions which are at issue upon the machine patent. v.36F.no.11-44
FEDERA.L .REPORTER.
The plaintiff insists, inasmuch as there had been previously no machine rubber shoes l a liberal construcfor securing llletallic tion should be given to the patent, and that machines performing the same functions by analogous. means should be regarded as infringing devices. The peculiarity of the Richardson machine consists in the mechanism by which the shoe and the heel-plate, which is placed uponthe "holder," are held and guided. III the Richards machine there is no equivalent, and no analogous mechanism for holding and guiding. The holding and guiding devices in the two machines entirely different. The other patent is the less important one, but, it having received from the experts and from counsel more careful investigation than it had upon the hearing of the motion, I have also examined it with more attention, and do not now think that it is being infringed. The prongs of the Richardson heel-plate were studs, which had enlarged bases, serving as plugs, and flattened clinching ends. The first operation of the die was, in the language of the specification, curve the ends of the pins or nails without bending the portion in the material of the tinuation of the pressure clinched the pins, and conlpressed the rubber around their shanks, so that water could not enter the shoe. The die was so constructed that the ends Of the pins only could be bent. The specification says that to insure the bending ofthe lower part ofthe pins, without affecting the upper part of the frame, and also to insure the close fitting of the pins in the rubber, the die was provided with radially placed inclined planes, the incline of which was placed in opposite directions, so as to bend the ends of the pins in opposite directions. These' planes were depressions in the surface of the die, .so that the entire plllnes were below the upper surface o{, the di El ,al,1d ,cpnsequently thf;l ends only of the pins were bent, and the, plugs were. intentionally not bent. Continued pressure compressed the rubber around the entire plug. By virtue of the radially plaQed planes, the clinching surfaces of the die bend and clinch the ends oUhe pins in a line parallel with the edge of the die block, whf;lreby, it is thought, the J.:\lbberis especially cOmpressed between the bent portions and theinnersurface of the heel-plate. By a which was recently filed, the owner, of the patent disclaimed a heel-die whose inclines are not "faced in opposite directions." These words, the disclaimer explains, mean that some of the inclined clinching surJil.Ces are faced or inclined in a direction substantially opposite to that qr those in which other of the inclined clinchingsurfaces are inclined or faced. This feature is said to beimportant, so that the clinching strains may be balanced, and the plate m:;ty be evenly imbedded in f.\nd evenly secured to the heel. . The o'perative part of the defendant's die consists of projections above .jtssurface, whereby the prongs, Which are slender throughout their length, are s.et in the by one .stroke of the plunger. side, which is the working face, of each projeGtion is concave. The die of ordinary si:l;e has five of which are not radially placed. The highest end projections ,are on radial lines,. centering. at elevations of tIle the same point: The first operation of the defendant's die is curve
UPTON fl. WAYLAND.
691
the ends of the prong, but the entire slender prong i8 intentionally bent. The die'has no system of similarly arranged planes. The detimdant construes the patent to be for a set of radially placed inclines, having their faces in opposite directions; the inclines being arranged either in two equal sets, bending the prongs away from each other in each set, or in pairs which bend the adjoining prongs towards each other. If a die contained, in connection with non-radially placed inclines, a single pair of radially placed inclines, which in fact performed the office which the Richardson die performs, I should be disposed to regard such a die as an infringer, although it did not have a complete set of Richardson inclines. But if a die, having irregularly placed inclines, cont?.ins also two radially placed inclines, which are or are not isolated from each other. but which do not perform the office which the Richardson die was designated to perform and does perform, I do not tllink that such a die, although containing radially placed planes,' is an infringing die. These inclines cannot do the work of the Richardson die upon the Richardson plate or upon the Richards plate, because they bend the entire shank. If the shank or plug of the Richardson prong should be bent, the heelplate would be injured or' destroyed. The Richards die is designed to bend the entire prong, and is therefore a different thir.'6 from the Richardson die. The bill is dismissed.
UP'1'ON
et ale
t. WAYLAND
(Oircuit (Jourt, 8. D. New York. November 8, 1888.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-INFRTNGEMENT-PRELDUNARY INJUNCTION.
is
The validity of letters patent No. 348,969, for a lamp-wick raiser, issued September 14, 1886, to Leonard Henkle, not having been adjudicated or recog· plzed by the public, a preliminary injunction to restrain their iIifringement willnot be granted in a suit inw1ich the patentable novelty of the invention fairly'contested.
SAME-PUBLIC ACQUIESCENCE.
The 'subject of said plltentbeing one of nine patented improvements em· bodied in the "Rochester lamp." the use of such lamps by the public. with 8cquiepcence in the exclusive right of the owners of the patellts, is not a rec· ognition of the validity of this particular patent.
In Equity. On motion for an injunction. This is an action by Charles Upton and Edward Miller & Co. against Chandler N. Wayland and Thomas B. Kent for alleged infringement of letters pateIitNo. 348,969, for a lamp-wick raiser, issued September 14, 1886, to Leonard Henkle, and reissue No. 17,090, d<l.ted February 81 1887. o. and H. M. Brigham, for complainants· .Edwin H. Brawn and Joshua Pusey, for defendants. W AJ,J,ACE. J. An examination of the dPDositior, and exhibits used upon. the motion for a preliminaryinjunct:..n does not disclose anything