67 F. 130 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana | 1895
This is a bill in equity to recover damages, and to restrain the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 201,946, issued April 2, 1878, to Dewitt C. Seed, for alleged new and useful improvements in harrows, which complainant now holds by divers mesne assignments.
The defenses interposed and relied on at the hearing are: (1) That the complainant is a combination or trust attempting to hold and use its naked legal title as assignee for purposes contrary to public
The complainant is a corporation purporting to be organized under the laws of the state oí Aew Jersey. The purpose of its organization, as shown by t!ie> proofs, is to become the assignee of all the patents held by the different corporations and business firms in the United States which are engaged in the manufacture and sale of spring-tooth harrows; to grant licenses to such corporations and firms to use the patents so assigned apon the payment by them of a royalty of one dollar for each harrow manufactured and sold; to take charge of all litigation of its licensees in relation to such patents, and to prosecute all infringements of any patent so assigned; to pay all costs and expenses of such litigation; and to fix and regulate i he price at which such harrows shall be sold by its licensees. The complainant corporation is not organized for the manufacture and sale of harrows under the patents assigned to it, nor has it ever engaged in their manufacture and sale. A majority of all the corporations and firms engaged in the manufacture and sale of spring-tooth harrows in the United States have assigned the patents owned by them, respectively, to the complainant, and have received from it licenses to manufacture and sell harrows under the patents severally assigned by them to it. The patent in suit is one of those so assigned to the complainant by D. C. & H. G. Reed & Co., who have received an exclusive license from the complainant to manufacture and sell harrows under that patent practically in®all the territory covered by it. So far as i can perceive, the complainant is organized to receive assignments of the legal title of harrow patents, to grant back licenses to their assignors to use and enjoy the same, to collect from each member of the combination or trust one dollar as a license fee for each harrow manufactured and sold, to regulate and control the price at which harrows may be sold by the members of the combination, and to prosecute and defend all suits involving the alleged infringement of such assigned patents.
It seems to me that such a combination is illegal, and that Its purposes are violative of sound public policy. The common law forbids the organization of such combinations, composed of numerous corporations and firms. They are dangerous to the peace and good order of society, and they arrogate to themselves the exercise of powers destructive of the right of free competition in the markets of the country, and, by their aggregate power and influence, imperil the free and pure administration of justice. Strait v. Harrow Co. (Sup.) 18 N. Y. Supp. 224; Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43 N. W. 1102; Emery v. Candle Co., 47 Ohio St. 320, 24 N. E. 660; State v. Nebraska Distilling Co., 29 Neb. 700, 46 N. W. 155.
Complainant says that its title to the patent in question is valid, and that it has a lawful right to its protection from invasion by a stranger, regardless of the objects and purposes of the combination which it represents. On the other hand, the defendants contend that to give its title protection would be to give aid to the unlawful pur
Turning to the patent in question, we find that the “invention relates to improvements in harrows, and more particularly to that class of harrows wherein the teeth are spring teeth or of bow form.” It “consists more particularly in a novel means for adjusting the said tooth so as to give to its point a greater or less depth of cut, which is effected by making that portion of the tooth which is adjacent to the frame curved and resting on a curved seat, and securing it thereto by a clip or its equivalent, by the loosening of which the tooth may be thrown forward or pushed back beneath its fastening,. thus lowering or raising its point. The crossbar or loop portion of the clip is formed concave upon its underside, and with a concavity greater than the corresponding portion of the harrow tooth; so that, when brought down to a firm bearing upon the tooth, this cross portion of the clip will find a firm bearing at its edges upon its curved seat. Instead of employing a continuous clip, that part resting upon the tooth may be simply a bar or plate perforated at its ends for the passage of bolts, which bolts are drawn snugly-by nuts upon the other side of the frame. So, also, a plate might rest upon the harrow tooth, and be held in its place by an ordinary clip, of uniform dimensions throughout, the plate not being perforated, but simply grooved along that portion where the clip passes, in order to hold the clip in its place. Other forms will readily suggest themselves, the principal feature of my invention being that the tooth shall rest upon a curved seat, and be capable of being adjusted longitudinally through its said seat, and thereby either elevate or depress its working point. I am aware that it is not new with me, broadly considered, to adjust a harrow tooth longitudinally upon its frame, so as to vary the depth of the cut thereof, and hence I do not include the same in my invention. What I claim is: (1) The combination, with a harrow frame and harrow tooth secured thereon,
The patentee does not claim the curved tooth, nor the curved seat, nor the curved or concave clip with its biting edges, nor the longitudinal adjustability of the harrow tooth upon its frame, as his invention. Bach of these elements was old and well known. The problem which he proposed to himself was to adjust a curved tooth to a harrow beam so that it could be readily moved in the direction of its length, and thus elevate or depress the point of the tooth. The invention consists in resting the harrow tooth upon a curved seat, and fastening it in place with an adjustable curved or concave clip having biting edges. In view of the prior state of the art, disclosed in the record, and which may be found fully set out in Eeed v. Smith, 40 Bed.- 882, I am of the opinion that the adjustment of a curved tooth to a curved seat on the harrow frame, and fastened thereto by a curved clip having biting edges, does not amount to invention. It seems to me that a skillful mechanic, familiar with the construction of harrows, could have devised the method of adjusting and fastening the tooth covered by the patent by the simple exercise of mechanical skill. While such is my opinion, I feel bound to hold this patent to be valid out of deference to many former adjudications in which it has been sustained. It ought not, however, to receive a construction broader than the very terms of the specification and claims require.
As said in Reed v. Smith, supra:
“We find it impossible to escape the conclusion that the elip, which lies at the foundation of the plaintiff’s patent, is limited to a curved clip with biiing edges, designed to hold the tooth rigidly to its seat.”
The patent then embraces a curved clip, having biting edges, in connection with a curved tooth and a curved seat for the same. The specificaiion declares that “the principal feature of the invention is that the tooth shall rest upon a curved seat.”
The defendants are alleged to have infringed by Ihe sale of harrows manufactured under letters patent No. 444,248, dated January 6, 1891, issued to Huson V. Miller for an alleged improvement in spring-toothed harrows. In this patent the harrow beam has a channel crossing its underface, in which channel a flat metal plate is fastened by a pin, and the tooth is placed in the channel, and rests against the metal plate at its outer edges, and is fastened by an ordinary flat clip, which comes in contact with the tooth at a point situated centrally in relation to the edges of the plate, and upon its convex side. When the clip is drawn down upon the convex side of the tooth, it presses the concave side of the tooth firmly upon the outer edges of the plate, thus holding the tooth in place. The tendency of the pressure of the clip is to slightly elevate the point of the tooth. While the result produced by each device is the same,
In view of the narrow construction which I feel constrained to put upon the complainant’s patent, I do not regard the Miller patent as embodying an infringing device; and, as that device is the one used in the harrows sold by the defendants, they cannot be held liable for infringement. The bill is therefore dismissed for want of equity, at complainant’s costs.