after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The defense of want of invention in the Liddell machine is not urged here, because it is said that the decision of that question depends upon mechanical comparisons, too numerous and complicated to be conveniently made by a bench of judges, and because, though the Liddell patent approaches closely the prior art, it “perhaps covers a margin of differentiation sufficient, though barely sufficient, to constitute invention.”
The two questions, therefore, which remain for decision are the jurisdiction of the court and the question of infringement. We will consider the latter question first. It does not depend, counsel for the Continental Company says, “upon any issue of fact, but does depend, as questions of infringement” sometimes do, upon a “point of law.” This point of law, it is further said, has been formulated in a decision of this court as follows: “Where the patent does not embody a primary invention, but only an improvement on the prior art, and defendant’s machines can be differentiated, the charge of infringement is
The citation is from
Cimiotti Unhairing Company
v.
American Fur Refining
Company,
We do not think it is necessary to follow counsel for petitioner in his review of other cases which, he urges, sustain his contention. The right view is expressed in
Miller
v.
Eagle Manufacturing Company,
It is manifest, therefore, that it was not meant to decide that only pioneer patents are entitled to invoke the doctrine of equivalents, but that it was decided that the range of equivalents depends upon and varies with the degree of invention. See
Ives et al.
v.
Hamilton, Executor,
We start, then, with the proposition that the Eastern Company may invoke for the Liddell patent the doctrine of equivalents, but without deciding now how broadly, we proceed to the consideration of the question of infringement. Invention is conceded to the Liddell machine, as we have seen, by the Continental Company. The concession, however, is qualified by the assertion that it covers only a “margin of differentiation” from the prior art. The Circuit Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals had a higher estimate of it. The Circuit Court said that the nature of its invention “was clear . . . was disconnected from what precedes it by such a hiatus, that, if the claims are as extensive as the invention, there is no difficulty so far as concerns the application to the case of the rules with reference to equivalents.” And answering the contention that it was the twentieth in the line of patents in its branch of the arts, and that it should be limited to the details described in its specifications, it was said that there was “such
We shall proceed, then, to consider upon what grounds the Circuit Court and Circuit Court of Appeals proceeded and their sufficiency to sustain the judgments rendered within the rule announced.
The bill alleges the infringement of claims-1, 2 and 7. The courts below selected claim 1 for consideration, as determinative of the questions arising, as well- on the other two claims as on it. In this counsel for the Continental Company ac
“The pith of the invention,” the Circuit Court said, “is the combination of the rotary cylinder with means of operating the forming plate in connection therewith, limited, however, to means which cause the plate to oscillate about its rear edge.” The court expressed the opinion that the invention extended to every means by which that result could be at
We think it is clear that the court considered that Liddell sought to comply with § 4888 of the Revised Statutes.
1
In other words, he filed a description of his invention, explained its principle and the best mode in which he “contemplated applying that principle,” and did not intend to give up all other modes of application. .An inventor must describe what he conceives to be the best mode, but he - is' not confined to that. If this were not so most patents would be of little worth. “The principle of the invention is a unit, and invariably the
This court said in
Cimiotti Unhairing Company
v.
American Fur Refining Company, supra:
“In making his claim the inventor is at liberty to choose his own form of expression, and while the courts may construe the same in view of the specifications and the state of the art, they may not add to or detract from the claim.” See also
Howe Machine Co.
v.
National Needle Co.,
The discussion thus far brings us to two propositions: that infringement is not averted merely because the machine alleged to infringe may be differentiated from the patented .machine, even though the invention embodied in the latter be not primary; and, second, that the description does not necessarily limit the claims. It is probably not contended
It may be well before considering these contentions to refer again to the view which the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals had of Liddell’s patent. The Circuit Court said that the “pith” of the invention “is the combination of the rotary cylinder with means for operating the forming plate
The court, as we have seen, concluded, from the character of the Liddell patent, that “the second method,” that is, the method of the Continental Company’s machine, was “within the doctrine of equivalents.”
Counsel, however, contends that the Circuit Court, in its decision, virtually gave Liddell a patent for a function by holding that he was entitled to every means to cause the forming plate to oscillate about its rear edge.
2. The next contention of the petitioner is that a court of equity has no jurisdiction to restrain the “infringement of letters patent the invention covered by which has long and always and unreasonably been held in non-use ... instead of being made beneficial to the art to which it belongs.” It will be observed that it is not urged that non-use merely of the patent takes jurisdiction from equityj but an unreasonable non-use. And counsel concedes indulgence to a non-use which is “non-chargeable to the owner of the patent,” as lack of means, or lack of ability or opportunity to induce others to put the patent to use. In other words, a question is presented, not of the construction of the law simply but of the conduct of the.patentee as contravening the supposed public policy of the law.
The foundation of the argument of the petitioner is, as we have intimated, the policy of the patent laws executing the purpose of the Constitution of the United States to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to inventors the exclusive right to their respective dis
It may be well, however, before considering what remedies a patentee is entitled to, to consider what rights are conferred upon him. The source of the rights is, of course, the law, and we are admonished at the outset that we must look for the policy of a statute, not in matters outside of it — not to circumstances of expediency and to supposed purposes not expressed by the words. The patent law is the execution of a policy having its first expression in the Constitution, and it may be supposed that all that was deemed necessary to accomplish and safeguard it must have been studied and provided for. It is worthy of note that all that has been deemed necessary for that purpose, through the experience of years, has been to provide foi an exclusive right to inventors to make, use and vend their inventions. In other words, the language of complete monopoly has been employed, and though at first
And the same relative rights of the patentee and the public were expressed in prior cases, and we cite them because there is something more than the repetition of the same thought
And, in
Bloomer
v.
McQuewan,
In
Patterson
v.
Kentucky,
It may be said that these cases deal only with the right of a patentee, and not with the remedy, whether at law or equity, that he may, at any time, or in all his situations, be entitled to. And there is no case in this court that explicitly does so. However, in the three last cases cited it was decided that patents are property, and entitled to the .same rights and sanctions as other property.
In
Bement
v.
National Harrow Company,
In
Hoe
v.
Knapp,
Judge Blodgett refused an injunction
Counsel for petitioner cites counter cases, which he contends are more direct authority.
3
He also reviews the cases cited
“Simple non-use is one thing. Standing alone, non-use is no efficient reason for withholding injunction. There are many reasons for non-use which, upon explanation, are cogent, but when acquiring, holding and non-use are only explainable upon the hypothesis of a purpose to abnormally force trade into unnatural channels — a hypothesis involving an attitude which offends public policy, the conscience of equity, and'the very spirit and intention of'the law upon which the legal right is founded — it is quite another thing. This is an aspect which has not been considered in a case like the one here.”
Respondent attacks the conclusion of Judge Aldrich and that of petitioner, and insists that there is nothing in the record to show that the non-use of the patent was either unreasonable or sinister. A very strong argument is presented by respondent. Its counsel pointedly say that “there is no record evidence at all on the subject or character of complainants’ [respondents’] use or non-use,” and points out that neither the assignments of error on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals nor the petition for rehearing in that court presented the question that the injunction should be denied on the ground of mere non-use or unreasonable non-use. Let us see what the courts say and what petitioner says. The Circuit Court says;
“We have stated that no machine for practical manufacturing purposes was ever constructed under the Liddell patent. The record also shpws that the complainant, so to speak, locked up its" patent. It has never attempted to make anypractical use of it, either itself 'or through licenses, and, apparently, its proposed policy has been to avoid this. In this respect it has' not the common excuse of a lack of means, as it is unquestioned that the cpmplainant is a powerful and wealthy corporation. We have no doubt that the complain-' ant stands in the common class of manufacturers who accumulate patents merely for the purpose of protecting their general industries and shutting out competitors.”
The comment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is:
“The machine-of the patent in suit is mechanically operative, as was shown experimentally for the purposes of this suit, but it has not been put into commercial use. No reason for the non-user appears in the evidence, so far as we can discover, The defendant’s machine has been an assured com-.. merciaL success for some years. It was suggested-at the oral argument that an unused patent is not entitled to the protection. given-by the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. This contention was not made in the defendant’s printed brief. While this question has not been- directly passed upon, so far as we. are informed, in any considered decision of the Supreme Court, yet the weight of authority is in favor of the complainant.” The cases were cited.
If these statements are to be reconciled it can only, be by supposing that the Circuit Court inferred- the motive of the .respondents 'from the unexplained non-use of the patent. But petitioner has given its explanation of the purpose of. respondent. Quoting Judge Aldrich, that the patent in-suit has been “deliberately held in'non-use. for á wrongful-purpose,” petitioner asks, “What was that wrongful purpose? It.was the purpose -to make more money with the existing old reciprocating Lorenz & IJoniss machines and the existing old complicated Stilwell machines than could be made with new Lid-'dell machines, when the cost oí building the latter was taken into account. And this purpose.was effective to cause the .long and invariable non-use of the Liddell invention, notwithstanding that new Liddell' machines might have produced
But, granting all this, it is certainly disputable that the non-use was unreasonable or that the rights of the public were involved. There was no question of a diminished supply or of increase of prices, and can it be said, as a matter of law, that a non-use was unreasonable which had for its motive the saving of the expense that would have been involved by changing the equipment of a factory from one set of machines to another? And even if the old machines could have been altered, the expense would have been considerable. As to the suggestion that competitors were excluded from the use of the new patent, we answer that such exclusion may be said to have been of the very essence of the right conferred by the patent, as it is the privilege of any owner of property to use or not use it, without question of motive.
Connolly
v.
Union Sewer Pipe Co.,
The right which a patentee receives does not need'much further explanation. We have seen that it has been the judgment of Congress from the beginning that the sciences and the useful arts could be best advanced by giving an exclusive right to an inventor. The only qualification ever made was against aliens in the act of 1832. That act extended the privilege of the patent law to aliens, but required them “to introduce into public use in the United States the invention or improvement within one year from the issuing thereof,” and indulged no intermission of the public use for any .period longer than six months. A violation of the law rendered the patent void. The act was repealed in 1836. It is manifest, as is said in Walker on Patents, § 106, that Congress has not “overlooked the subject of non-user of patented inventions.” And another fact may be mentioned. In some foreign countries the right granted to an inventor is affected by non-use. This policy, we must assume, Congress has not been ignorant of nor of its effects. Tt has, nevertheless, selected another policy; it has continued tnat policy through many years. We may assume that ex
From the character of the right of the patentee we may judgé of his remedies. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the right can only retain its attribute of exclusiveness by a prevention of its.'violation.' Anything but prevention takes away the privilege which the law confers upon the patentee. If the conception of the law that a judgment in an action at law is reparation for the trespass, it is only for the particular trespass that is the ground of the action. There may be other trespasses and continuing wrongs and the vexation of many actions. These are well-recognized grounds of equity jurisdiction, especially in patent cases, and a citation of cases is unnecessary. Whether, howevér, a case cannot arise where, regarding the situation of the parties in view of the public interest, a court -of equity might be justified in withholding relief by injunction we do not decide.
Decree affirmed.
Notes
2. In a paper bag machine', the combination of the rotating cylinder . provided with one or more pairs of side folding fingers adapted to be moved toward or from each other, a forming plate also provided with side forming fingers adapted to be moved toward or from each other, means for operating said fingers at definite times during the formative action upon the bag tube, operating means for the forming plate adapted to cause the said plate to oscillate about its rear edge upon the surface of the cylinder during the rotary movement of said cylinder for the purpose of opening and forming the bottom of the bag tube, a finger moving with the forming plate for receiving the upper sheet of the tube and lifting it during the formative action, power devices for returning the forming plate to its original position to receive a new bag tube, and means to move the bag tube with the cylinder.
7. In a paper bag machine, the combination of the rotating cylinder for the bag tube provided with one or more pairs of folding fingers adapted to be moved toward or from each other, a forming plate also provided with forming fingers adapted to be moved toward or- from each other,, means for operating said fingers at definite times during the formative action upon the bag tube, operating means for the forming plate adapted to cause the said plate to oscillate about its rear edge upon the surface of the cylinder during the rotary movement of said cylinder for the purpose of opening and forming the bottom of the bag tube, and connecting mechanism for timing the movements of the rotating cylinder and the forming plate.
Sec. 4888. Before any inventor or discoverer shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery, he shall- make application therefor, in writing, to the Commissioner of Patents, and shall file in the Patent Office a written description of the same, and of the manner and process of making, constructing, compounding, and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, construct, compound, and use the same; and in case of a machine, he shall explain the principle thereof, and the best mode in which he has contemplated applying that principle, so as to distinguish it from other inventions; and he shall particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his invention or discovery. The specification and claim shall be signed by the inventor and attested by two witnesses.
Edison v. Mt. Morris Co., 57 Fed. Rep. 642, 644 (2d Cir.); Heaton-Peninsular Co. v. Eureka Co., 77 Fed. Rep. 294 (6th Cir.); Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Aluminum Stopper Co., 108 Fed. Rep. 845, 868 (4th Cir.); Fuller v. Berger, 120 Fed. Rep. 274, 277 (7th Cir.); Lamson Consolidated Service Co. v. Hillman, 123 Fed. Rep. 416, 422 (7th Cir.); Victor Talking Machine Co. v. Fair, 123 Fed. Rep. 425 (7th Cir.); U. S. Seeded Raisin Co. v. Griffin, 126 Fed. Rep. 364, 368 (9th Cir.); Rupp v. Elliott, 131 Fed. Rep. 730 (6th Cir.); Munroe v. Railway Appliance Co., 145 Fed. Rep. 646, 648 (7th Cir.); Filter Co. v. Jackson, 140 Fed. Rep. 340, 343 (8th Cir.); U. S. Fastener Co. v. Bradley, 149 Fed. Rep. 222 (2d Cir.); Rubber Tire Co. v. Milwaukee, 154 Fed. Rep. 358, 361 (7th Cir.); Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Co., 154 Fed. Rep. 365 (7th Cir.).
Carr v. Rice, 1 Fish. 198, 200 (N. Y.); Wintermute v. Redington, 1 Fish. 243 (Ohio); Ransom v. Mayor, 1 Fish. 255 (N. Y.); Pitts v. Wemple, 2 Fish. 15 (Ill.); Whitney v. Emmett, 1 Bald. 304; Broadnax v. Central Stock Yard, 4 Fed. Rep. 214, 216 (N. J.); In re Brosnahan, Jr., 18 Fed. Rep. 62 (Justice Miller) (Mo.); Consolidated Roller Mill Co. v. Coombs, 39 Fed. Rep. 803 (Mich.); Wirt v. Hicks, 46 Fed. Rep. 71 (N. Y.); Campbell v. Manhattan Railway, 49 Fed. Rep. 930 (N. Y.); Edison v. Mt. Morris, 57 Fed. Rep. 642, 644 (N. Y.); Masseth v. Johnston, 59 Fed. Rep. 612 (Pa.); Bonsack v. Smith, 70 Fed. Rep. 383 (N. C.); Columbia v. Freeman, 71 Fed. Rep. 302, 306 (Mo.); Wyckoff v. Wagner, 88 Fed. Rep. 515 (N. Y.); White v. Peerless, 111 Fed. Rep. 190 (Pa.); Brodrick v. Mayhew, 131 Fed. Rep. 92 (Wis.); National Co. v. Daab, 136 Fed. Rep. 891, 895 (N. J.); Hoe v. Miehle, 141 Fed. Rep. 115 (N. Y.); Hartman v. Park & Son, 145 Fed. Rep. 358 (Ky.).
Isaacs
v.
Holland,