Americanco v. Simmons
| Decision Date | 06 November 1882 |
| Docket Number | COTTON-TIE |
| Citation | 27 L.Ed. 79,106 U.S. 89,1 S.Ct. 52 |
| Parties | AMERICANCO. (Limited) and others v. SIMMONS and others |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
S. A. Duncan, for appellants.
B. F. Thurston, for appellees.
This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit in equity from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint. The suit was brought for the infringement of three several letters patent: No. 19,490, granted to Frederic Cook, March 2, 1858, for an 'improvement in metallic ties for cotton-bales,' and extended for seven years from March 2, 1872; reissued letters patent No. 5,333, granted to James J. McComb, as assignee of George Brodie, March 25, 1873, for an 'improvement in cotton-bale ties,' (the original patent having been granted to Brodie as inventor March 22, 1859, and reissued to him April 27, 1869, and extended for seven years from March 22, 1873;) and No. 31,252, granted to J. J. McComb, January 29, 1861, for an 'improvement in iron ties for cotton-bales,' and extended for seven years from January 29, 1875. They are severally known as the Cook, the Brodie, and the McComb patents. The Cook patent expired March 2, 1879; the Brodie patent, March 22, 1880; and the McComb patent, January 29, 1882. The plaintiffs are the American Cotton-tie Company, (Limited,) a British corporation; James J. McComb, administrator of Mary F. McComb, deceased; and the said James J. McComb, Charles G. Johnson, and Emerson Foote, each in his own behalf and as a copartner in a firm called the American Cotton-tie Company. The defendants are Simeon W. Simmons and two other persons, doing business as the Providence Cotton-tie Company. The Cook patent was assigned to McComb March 21, 1872. The Brodie reissue of 1869, with all rights to reissue, renewal, and extension, was assigned to McComb March 19, 1873. On the twenty-second of June, 1874, McComb assigned to himself, Johnson, and Foote, who composed the firm called the American Cotton-tie Company, the Cook patent as extended, and the Brodie patent as reissued in 1869 and as extended. Mary F. McComb became, in 1861, the owner of the McComb patent. She died in 1874 intestate, and McComb was appointed her administrator. On the first of March, 1876, the firm called the American Cotton-tie Company assigned to the corporation called the American Cotton-tie Company, (Limited,) the Cook patent as extended, and the Brodie patent as extended and as reissued in 1873. On the same day, McComb, individually and as administrator, assigned to the said corporation the McComb patent and its extension.
The bill is in the usual form, and was filed in November, 1876. It alleges that the defendants have made, used, and sold to others to be used, the patented inventions, and also metallic ties for cotton bales containing the patented inventions. No defense affecting the validity of the patents sued on is set up in the answer. The only defense pleaded or made is as to infringement.
The corporation plaintiff, since it acquired title to the three patents in March, 1876, has carried on the business of making cotton bale ties under the patents. The form of tie it has principally made is the form of the McComb patent, which is called the 'arrow tie,' from the shape of the five-sided hole cut in the plate of the buckle. It has not granted any licenses to make the ties, but has itself supplied the demand for them. The tie consists of a buckle and a band all made of metal. The band goes around the bale, and the two ends of it are confined by means of the buckle. On each of the buckles which the corporation has made and put upon the market it has placed the words 'Licensed to use once only,' stamped into the body of the metal. This practice was also observed by its predecessor, the copartnership firm.
The tie, consisting of buckle and band, is purchased by the person who desires to use it to confine the cotton in the bale, and is placed around the bale on the plantation or at the cotton-press. It remains on the bale until the bale reaches the cotton-mill, and the band of the tie which is of hoop-iron, is then cut. The buckle and the band, thus free, become scrap-iron, and are sold as such. The hoop is too short for the length required for baling, if it were to be mended by lapping and riveting the two ends at the place of severance, and to bale with it requires that there should be a free end which may be confined at the buckle in the process of baling. The defendants buy the buckles and severed hoops at the cotton-mills, as scrap-iron, the hoops, when bought, being in bundles, bent, and being pieces of unequal lengths, some cut at one distance from the buckle and some at another. The defendants straighten the old pieces of hoop and roll them by cold rolling, and punch the ends with holes, and rivet the pieces together, and form a band by cutting it to the proper length, which band, with the buckle accompanying it, makes a tie ready for use. In using the tie one end of the band is attached to one end of the buckle by a loop in that end of the band, and then the band is passed around the bale, and its free end is slipped, by a loop made in it, through a slit in the buckle, around the other end of the buckle while the bale is under pressure. When the pressure is removed the expansive force of the compressed cotton holds the looped ends of the bands in place in the buckle, the looped ends being confined between the bale and the body of the band. The use of the arrow tie has been very extensive. The defendants sell to others to be used the ties which they so prepare, and do not themselves bale cotton with them. Baled cotton is sold in the United States without tare; that is, the iron of the buckle and the hoop is weighed with the cotton and the bagging, and the whole is sold by weight at the price of the cotton per pound. The scrap-iron,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aro Manufacturing Co v. Convertible Top Replacement Co, 21
...grant, into play for a second time, it must, indeed, be a second creation of the patented entity, as, for example, in American Cotton Tie Co. v. Simmons, supra. Mere replacement of individual unpatented parts, one at a time, whether of the same part repeatedly or different parts successivel......
-
General Elec. Co. v. United States
...504, 178 Ct.Cl. 738, 748 (1967). Unless there is some definite provision in the sale to the contrary, see Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U.S. 89, 1 S.Ct. 52, 27 L.Ed. 79 (1882), as explained in Aro I, 365 U.S. at 343, n. 9, 81 S.Ct. 599, it can properly be assumed that as part of the bargai......
-
Connecticut Telephone & Electric Co. v. Automotive E. Co.
...v. Simpson, 50 U. S. (9 How.) 109, 13 L. Ed. 66; Mitchell v. Hawley, 83 U. S. (16 Wall.) 544, 21 L. Ed. 322; Cotton Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U. S. 89, 1 S. Ct. 52, 27 L. Ed. 79; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Springfield Foundry Co. (C. C.) 34 F. 393; Shickle v. St. Louis Car Coupler Co., 77 F. 739, 23 ......
-
Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd. v. Jazz Photo Corp.
...have held that refurbishment of the spent item constitutes impermissible reconstruction. See, e.g., • American Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U.S. 89, 1 S.Ct. 52, 27 L.Ed. 79 (1882) (iron cotton-bale tie consisting of band and buckle; band was cut by original purchaser and defendants therea......
-
Chapter §19.03 Absence of Liability for Infringement
...S. Ct. at 1766 (footnotes omitted).[344] Bowman, 133 S. Ct. at 1768.[345] Bowman, 133 S. Ct. at 1768 (citing Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U.S. 89, 93–94 (1882) (holding that a purchaser could not "use" the buckle from a patented cotton-bale tie to "make" a new tie)). The Bowman Court also......
-
Governmental Indirection Patent Infringement: The Need to Hold Uncle Sam Accountable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498
...1910] its purpose was not to weaken the rights of patentees, but to further secure them.”). 315 See American Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U.S. 89 (1882). American Cotton-Tie Company sold cotton-ties that consisted of a specially designed buckle and a band. Id. at 91. When farmers delivere......
-
The Federal Circuit's Licensing Law Jurisprudence: Its Nature and Influence
...private parties may contract as they choose, provided no law is violated thereby." Mallinckrodt, 976 F.2d at 703 (Fed. Cir. 1992). 158. 106 U.S. 89 159. Id. at 91. The Court also discussed the limited license in Providence Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 788 (1869). 160. 305 U.S. ......
-
Legislative Intent Supports a Patent Knowledge Requirement
...Talking Machine Co., 213 U.S. 325 (1909); Courtelyou v. Charles Eneu Johnson and Co., 207 U.S. 196 (1907); Am. Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons, 106 U.S. 89 (1882). 33. See e.g.Wallace, supra note 22 at 65; Am. Cotton-Tie, supra note 32 at 89, 94-95; Leeds and Catlin Co., supra note 32 at 325, 331......