Brookfield vs. Novelty Glass Company regarding Kribs patent

[Trade Journal]

Publication: The Federal Reporter

Minneapolis, MN, United States
vol. 124, p. i;1;551-553, col. 1


THE

 

FEDERAL REPORTER

 

VOLUME 124.

 


 

CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED

 

IN THE

 

CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

PERMANENT EDITION

 


SEPTEMBER — NOVEMBER, 1903


 

A TABLE OF STATUTES CONSTRUED IS GIVEN IN THE INDEX.


 

ST. PAUL:

WEST PUBLISHING CO.

1903.

·

·

CASES

 

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

 

IN THE

 

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS.

 


·

·

BROOKFIELD et al. v. NOVELTY GLASS MFG. CO.

 

(Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. August 15, 1903.)

 

1. PATENTS — MANUFACTURE OF SCREW INSULATORS — VALIDITY— INFRINGEMENT.

Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of patent No. 542,565, dated July 9, 1895, granted to Seraphin Kribs, assignor to William Brookfield, For "Improvements in Presses for Making Screw-Insulators," are valid and were infringed by the defendant.

2. SAME — CONSTRUCTION.

Claim 1 of patent No. 532,973, dated January 22, 1895, granted to Seraphin Kribs, assignor to William Brookfield, for "Improvements in Screw Presses for Forming Insulators," is of a subsidiary nature and of narrow scope; and, in view of the prior art, if it can be sustained at all, must receive such a narrow construction as to negative the charge of infringement by the defendant.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

In Equity.

Kenyon & Kenyon, for complainants.

Walter H. Bacon and Charles M. Catlin, for defendants.

BRADFORD, District Judge. The bill in this case was filed by William Brookfield, a citizen of New York, against the Novelty Glass Manufacturing Company, a corporation of New Jersey, charging infringement of letters patent of the United States Nos. 542,565 and 532,973, and containing the usual prayers. Brookfield recently having died, the suit is prosecuted by his executrix and executors. Both patents were issued to Seraphin Kribs as assignor to Brookfield. Patent No. 542,565 was applied for July 5, 1894, bears date July 9, 1895, and is for "Improvements in Presses for Making Screw-Insulators". Patent No. 532,973 was applied for September 6, 1894, bears date January 22, 1895, and is for "Improvements in Screw Presses for Forming Insulators". Patent No. 542,565 contains ten claims. The charge of infringement has been restricted to claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. They are as follows:

"1. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, and a movable mold adapted to travel from the actuating rod to the spindle substantially as described.

2. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, and a movable support for the mold substantially as described.

3. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, a movable support for the mold, and a lock for holding the support with the mold in operative position relatively to the actuating rod and spindle substantially as described.

6. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle, adapted to engage the screw plunger, and a movable mold adapted to travel from the actuating rod to the spindle, said actuating rod and spindle being independent of one another substantially as described.

7. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a movable mold adapted to travel from the actuating rod to the spindle, and independent actuating levers for the rod and the spindle respectively substantially as described.

8. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, a movable support for the mold, and a standard for supporting the actuating rod and spindle and about which the support is movable substantially as described."

Infringement by the defendant of all the above quoted claims is admitted by its counsel either by stipulation or brief of argument. The question of liability, for such infringement wholly turns on the validity or invalidity of those claims or one or more of them. This is the only issue as to patent No. 542,565. The defendant contends that the several claims of that patent in suit are void for the reason, as alleged, that one Charles J. Jordan, and not Kribs, was the true, original, sole and first inventor of the mechanism described and claimed, or, if Jordan was not the sole inventor, such mechanism was the joint invention of Kribs and Jordan or Kribs and one or more other persons in the employ of Brookfield at his glass factory in Brooklyn, New York; and for the further reason, as alleged, that the subject-matter of those claims had been anticipated or o