Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp.
Decision Date | 26 February 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 6701,6702.,6701 |
Citation | 108 F.2d 322 |
Parties | COLD METAL PROCESS CO. v. CARNEGIE-ILLINOIS STEEL CORPORATION et al. CARNEGIE-ILLINOIS STEEL CORPORATION et al. v. COLD METAL PROCESS CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, N. J. (Thomas G. Haight, of Jersey City, N. J., Clarence P. Byrnes, of New York City, Walter J. Blenko, and Wm. H. Webb, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for Cold Metal Process Co.
Merrell E. Clark, of New York City, John E. Jackson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Charles H. Walker, of New York City, and Lindabury, Depue & Faulks, of Newark, N. J., for Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation and U. S. Steel Corporation.
Before DAVIS, BUFFINGTON, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Writ of Certiorari Denied February 26, 1940. See 60 S.Ct. 590, 84 L.Ed. ___.
In the court below the Cold Metal Process Company, assignee of Abram F. Steckel, brought suit against Carnegie-Illinois Steel Company and the United States Steel Corporation, charging, inter alia, infringement of Patent No. 1,779,195, hereafter styled '195, for "method and apparatus for rolling thin sheet like material." As stated therein, "This application is a division of my application Serial No. 648,761, filed June 30, 1923." It is here noted that said Serial No. 648,761 resulted in the grant of Patent No. 1,744,016, hereafter referred to as '016. On final hearing that court in an opinion reported at Cold Metal Process Co. v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., D.C., 22 F.Supp. 75, held patent '195 invalid for lack of invention and dismissed the bill. The court also held patent '016 valid and infringed and from a decree so adjudging the defendants took an appeal. It also appears the Cold Metal Company brought suit likewise charging defendants with infringement of patent No. 1,744,017, hereafter called '017, granted January 14, 1930, to Abram P. Steckel for rolling metal strip, with infringement of patent No. 1,744,018, hereafter called '018, granted January 14, 1930 to Abram P. Steckel for method and apparatus for rolling; with infringement of patent No. 1,881,056, hereafter called '056, granted October 4, 1932 to William C. McBain for Tension Device. All these cases were consolidated and disposed of in the above stated opinion, so that the situation as to '195, '017, '018 and '056 now is that the bills were dismissed, from which dismissals Cold Metal has appealed. As to '016, which was held valid and infringed, the defendants have appealed. As did the court below, we dispose of all patents in this opinion. In doing so we first consider and dispose of '195 and '016.
In an earlier case between the same parties the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in an opinion reported at Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineering & Foundry Co., 3 F.Supp. 120, held patent '195 valid and infringed. Reference to the two comprehensive opinions of the different District Courts illustrates the art and saves needless repetition in this opinion.
As stated in patent '195 specification,
It will therefore be noted that we are here concerned first, with the process of cold as contrasted with hot rolling, and, secondly, with a "thin strip" of steel product as compared with thicker steel products. This distinction between thin strip and thicker steel sheet products and between cold and hot rolling was such as to really evidence two essentially different fields in the steel art and this is strikingly evidenced by the fact that while there were many advances made in heavier steel rolling, there was no advance made in the thin strip art and the method in use when this patent was applied for in 1923 was the same "pack" method in use for two hundred years. In 1908 in the case of Donner v. American Steel and Tin Plate Company, 3 Cir., 165 F. 199, 203, this court had occasion to consider the "pack" process as then used in steel rolling and after considering the uncontradicted proof of the state of the art by men experienced therein, we there held that even with continuous rolling "the packs stick and produce scrap to such a degree as to make such rolling commercially unsuccessful."
Indeed, the inability of a pack process to produce the low gauged finished sheets the art was calling for is shown by the defendants' own proofs in a patent to Cushwa, No. 904,605, wherein the patentee states:
Without discussing the art in great detail, the fact is that neither by the old "pack" method, which employed a stand of two rolls to roll heated metal, nor by any known four-roll stand, nor by any continuous roll process, was the art able to make advance in thin strip steel rolling either cold or hot. In that respect we agree with the statement in the patentee's specification that in the divisional application '016 "cold rolling has theretofore been primarily an expensive finishing process, and not a cheap reduction process." The art was stagnant. Why such was the fact will be better understood by a statement of what the "pack" system was and what limitations and objections were incident thereto.
The evolution of the art and the ultimate standardization of "pack" rolling is thus summarized by Clinton H. Hunt, an experienced steel man:
As "pack" rolling represents the peak of the working art when the patent in suit was applied for, we here reproduce in reduced size an exhibit which illustrates the "pack" method.
The proofs are that these roll stands are called hand mills, that the rolls for tin plate mills are about 2 feet 6 inches in diameter and each roll weighs from fourteen to fifteen thousand pounds. The ends or necks of the roll are of reduced size and revolve in brass bearings. The pressure employed in the process is many thousand pounds.
Referring to the foregoing illustration, the process is thus explained:
"The drawing, Exhibit P-55, represents in general diagram, with substantial accuracy, the several steps involved in pack rolling.
* * * * * *
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cold Metal Process Co. v. United Engineer. & Fdry. Co.
...Process Co. v. American Sheet & Tin Plate Co., D.C.N.J. 1938, 22 F.Supp. 75, decree reversed in part, Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 3 Cir., 108 F.2d 322, certiorari denied 309 U.S. 665, 60 S.Ct. 590, 84 L.Ed. 1012, opinion of Court of Appeals withdrawn and orders ......
-
Johnson & Johnson v. Kendall Company
...the patented idea to a person skilled in the art unless he were examining it for that purpose, Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 3 Cir., 1939, 108 F. 2d 322, 333, * * *; and neither contained within its four corners, adequate directions for practicing the Gross invent......
-
Cold Metal Process Company v. Republic Steel Corp.
...as National Steel, Allegheny Steel, Crucible Steel, American Brass Company. After the decision in Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corporation, 3 Cir., 108 F.2d 322, United States Steel took a license. Several corporations renewed their licenses two or three times or took o......
-
Sperry Products, Inc. v. Aluminum Company of America
...to make that reference conform in structure, purpose and function with the teachings of Firestone. In Cold Metal Process Co. v. Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp., 3 Cir., 108 F.2d 322, 336, it was "A prior device, in order to anticipate, * * * `must have been complete, and capable of producing ......