Apco Mfg. Co. v. Temco Electric Motor Co.

Decision Date27 January 1926
Docket NumberNo. 4493.,4493.
PartiesAPCO MFG. CO. v. TEMCO ELECTRIC MOTOR CO. TEMCO ELECTRIC MOTOR CO. v. APCO MFG. CO.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

James A. Branch and Clifford L. Anderson, both of Atlanta, Ga., and Moseley Arthur Keller, of New York City, for appellant and cross-appellee.

John A. Sibley, of Atlanta, Ga., and H. A. Toulmin and H. A. Toulmin, Jr., both of Dayton, Ohio (King, Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, of Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for appellee and cross-appellant.

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and FOSTER, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree in which appellant was held to be an infringer of the Thompson patent, No. 1,072,791, issued September 9, 1913, for a shock absorber designed to be used in combination with the leaf spring of a Ford automobile. The patent is owned by appellee, plaintiff below.

The Ford car is equipped with two semielliptic leaf springs; one over and parallel to each axle. The ends of each spring are turned down and attached by radius links to upright stanchions bolted through the axle, and the middle portions of the springs support the body of the car. The object of the patent in suit was to make riding easier by combining the coil or helical spring with the leaf spring. Thompson, the patentee, undertook to accomplish this result by a device which would absorb shocks between the axle and the leaf spring. The shock absorber which he described and illustrated contains an upright stanchion to take the place of the stanchion to which the leaf spring is attached, and a sliding hanger extending above the leaf spring and connected with it by the link which theretofore had been directly attached to the stanchion of the car. The spring which operates the sliding member of the shock absorber was at first placed around the stanchion, but later the stanchion was placed outside the spring. Each of the claims upon which the patent was granted is for a combination of a coil spring and a hanger attached to slide on a stanchion. One of the claims, which was disallowed by the District Court, is for "stanchions being adapted to limit the end motion of the leaf springs and thereby prevent the side sway of the chassis frame"; but it, as well as the other claims, describes the hanger as having a vertical movement and being guided by the stanchion. A claim for a combination of a helical and leaf spring was rejected by the Patent Office, because such combination was well known in the prior art. Of necessity, the side sway of the car and the thrust of the expanded leaf spring were limited by the stanchions of the shock absorber just as theretofore they had been by the stanchions of the car, and it was soon discovered that there was considerable friction between the stationary and the moving parts of the patented device. Thompson thereupon began to use a radius link on his device for the purpose of reducing friction, and applied for a patent on a new combination which included it. But in an interference proceeding in the Patent Office priority of the conception of a radius link as a part of a shock absorber adapted to the Ford car was awarded to one Storrie, and this ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Appellant secured a license from Storrie, and used the radius link on its device which it is claimed infringes upon the patent in suit.

Appellant's device has a conical spring mounted on a stanchion and a rod or hanger, which, at its lower end, is held in the center of the broad base of the spring by one end of a radius link, the other end of which fits into an eye in the stanchion on the side away from the leaf spring. The end...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Thermo King Corp. v. WHITE'S TRUCKING SERVICE, INC.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • May 22, 1959
    ...liens and unknown liabilities to lawsuits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith." In Apco Manufacturing Company v. Temco Electric Motor Company, 11 F.2d 109, the Fifth Circuit Court held, quoting from the "Where a patent is for the combination of well-known parts, and is ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT