Publication: The Commoner and Glassworker
Pittsburgh, PA, United States
BROOKFIELD COMPANY DID NOT LOSE.
Official of the Company Gives the Facts of the
Litigation With the Elmer Glass Works
and Contradicts Incorrect Reports.
There have been frequent rumors of late to the effect that the Brookfield Glass Co., of Brooklyn, N. Y., had been unsuccessful in their suit against the Elmer Glass Works, of Elmer, N. J., to restrain the latter company from infringing the patented press owned and controlled by the former. In regard to their side of the case a prominent official of the Brookfield Company when interviewed recently, had the following to say:
"A suit was brought by William Brookfield against the Novelty Glass Mfg. Co., of Elmer, N. J., for infringement of the Kribs patent. This suit was fought vigorously by the Novelty company, they contending that the Kribs patent was invalid, and also that the press of the Novelty company did not infringe. The court decided against the Novelty, holding that the Kribs patent was valid and that the Novelty company had infringed, and a decree was entered for a perpetual injunction and for an accounting against the Novelty company and that accounting is now proceeding.
"Shortly after the business of the Novelty company had been stopped by the decree of the court and their property sold out under a foreclosure, the Elmer Glass Works was organized, as we believe, by the same people. The Elmer Glass Works used two forms of press which they called the Duffield press. As soon as we became aware of the facts and of the construction of the Duffield press, we brought suit against the Elmer Glass Works and made a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain the Elmer Glass Works from using both forms of the press even during the suit.
"The court directed that a preliminary injunction should be issued against the Elmer Glass Works restraining them from using the second form of Duffield press. The court refused to grant the preliminary injunction as against the first form of Duffield press simply because it held that there was a doubt as to whether this form of press infringed the Kribs patent. Preliminary injunctions are never granted except where the case of infringement is so clear as to be free from substantial doubt. The decision of the court on this preliminary motion does not finally determine this question, but leaves it to be determined at the final hearing of the case upon ordinary proofs rather than upon affidavits. We are entirely confident that at the final hearing the first form of the Duffield press will also be held to be an infringement of the Kribs patent, and its use will be enjoined and the Elmer Glass Works will be directed to account for all the profits that they have made and for the damages that we have suffered by reason of this infringement.
"At the same time we made a motion to punish some of the officers of the former Novelty Glass Co. for contempt by reason of their violation of the injunction that had been previously granted by the court. The court held that Daniel M. Parker, who is now superintendent of the Elmer Glass Works, had been guilty of contempt by reason of the use of the second form of the Duffield press at the factory of the Elmer Glass Works, and directed that he should be fined in consequence thereof.
"The articles published in different papers refer to the fact that Mr. Duffield obtained a patent for his machine, as if this fact showed that Mr. Duffield had a right to use the same. The fact that Mr. Duffield received a patent does not permit him to use the device shown in the patent if that device is an infringement of a prior patent. The articles referred to contain the further statement that Mr. Duffield 'is sustained by the court in each of his contentions.' From what I have said the trade will see that this statement is false. The court has enjoined Mr. Duffield from using one form of his press, and has merely postponed to final hearing the question whether he has a right to use the other form. We believe that at the final hearing he will be enjoined from using the first form, and he and his associates will be adjudged to pay damages and profits just as happened in the case of the Novelty Co. Our Kribs patent has been sustained by the court, and we propose to take vigorous steps, if necessary, to maintain our rights thereunder.
"The Duffield patents have been sustained by the court for, as a matter of fact, the validity of the Duffield patents was not before the court for decision."