American Coat Pad Co. of Baltimore City v. Phoenix Pad Co.
Citation | 113 F. 629 |
Decision Date | 04 February 1902 |
Docket Number | 422. |
Parties | AMERICAN COAT PAD CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY v. PHOENIX PAD CO. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Richard S. Culbreth (Frederick M. Feldner, on the brief), for appellants.
Arthur Steuart, for appellee.
Before SIMONTON, Circuit Judge, and PURNELL and WADDILL, District judges.
The appeal is from a decree of the circuit court of Maryland in a patent case, granting a preliminary injunction restraining appellants, defendants below, until the further order of the court, from infringing the patent rights which the appellee plaintiff below, claims to be entitled under letters patent No. 359,441, issued to Edward Goldman, dated March 13, 1887. The title of appellee to the letters patent is set out in the verified bill, supported by the affidavits of Gustay Goldman president of the appellee company, and others. Assuming title to the letters patent to be as stated, it is as follows: From Edward Goldman, patentee by assignment September 20, 1890, to the Eureka Coat Pad Company, and by assignment from the Eureka Coat Pad Company March 16, 1901, to the Phoenix Pad Company, appellee. The assignments are not controverted or questioned. This title is not denied. An answer under oath was waived in the usual form, but defendants, below appellants here, verified the answer, and filed therewith affidavits and exhibits consisting of certified copies of letters patent referred to in the answer. Several issues of fact are raised by the pleadings, a consideration of which at this time would tend to embarrass the trial court in the consideration of the case on the final hearing, and this court, should the case be again brought here by appeal. Loew Filter Co. v. German-American Filter Co., 47 C.C.A. 94, 107 F. 950. The cause is not in a condition to be heard as to these matters now, and it must be understood what is said is upon the record as now before the court, and not as to the merits as they may be hereafter presented.
It is stated in the brief of counsel for appellee and in the opinion of the court, which it is said the trial judge delivered before leaving the bench, that the validity of the plaintiff's patent and infringement by defendants are not denied. This statement must refer to something said on the hearing, of which this court knows nothing. An examination of the pleadings discloses the fact that defendant corporation, in the first allegation of its answer, sets out in full the answer of the Phoenix Coat Pad Company (to which it alleges the Phoenix Pad Company is to all intents and purposes successor) in 1889 to a bill filed by the Eureka Pad Company, denying the Goldman patent, alleging two prior patents, No. 41,073, January 5, 1864, to Moses A. Thompson, and No. 236,267, January 4, 1881, to Daniel T. Smith, and that Edward Goldman was not the inventor of the coat pad described, but the same was used many years before the parties in Cincinnati, Baltimore, and New York, naming them. The paragraph is adopted by defendants as part of their answer. Another suit (The Eureka Coat Pad Company v. H. M. Marcus & Bro.; 1890) is referred to as involving the Goldman letters patent, and it is conceded that neither of these cases came to a final hearing. There has been no adjudication as to the validity of said letters patent. The validity of the Goldman letters patent is therefore denied in the pleadings.
The infringement of plaintiff's letters patent is set out in paragraph 8 of the bill, and in the eighth paragraph of the defendants' answer are these words: 'The defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 8 of the bill. ' In the following two paragraphs of the answer defendants admit they have manufactured coat pads, but explain at some length this was done under letters patent No. 673,331, issued to Louis Bouchat, January 10, 1901, and setting out the difference between the coat pad thus manufactured and the coat pad for which the Goldman letters patent provide, and an improvement claimed in such coat pads so manufactured over the Goldman patent. The validity and infringement are thus denied, and clear-cut issues raised. An examination of the record discloses several defenses set up,-- no patentable subject of invention, prior use, no adjudication, no infringement, and ability to respond in damages. This is allowable by statutory provision. 29 Stat.c. 391; Bates, Fed. Eq. Proc. 331.
The ground upon which a preliminary injunction was granted is thus set out in the opinion of the court, which counsel say was delivered by the trial judge before he left the bench:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Cash Register Co. v. Remington Arms Co., Inc.
... ... W. Cooper and George Ramsey, both of New York City, and ... William S. Hilles, of Wilmington, Del., for ... against him personally'; upon American Coat Pad Co ... v. Phoenix Pad Co. (C.C.A. 4) 113 F. 629, ... ...
-
Barnes v. Boyd
...defendant alone, pending the continuance of the cause, would be incongruous and illegal." See, also, American Coat Pad Co. v. Phœnix Pad Co. (C. C. A. 4th Cir.) 113 F. 629, 633, where it is said that if one defendant has permitted a decree pro confesso to be entered against him and another ......
-
Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Toledo Boiler Works Co.
... ... v. Woodward, 82 F. 97, 27 C.C.A. 69, and ... American Coat Pad Co. v. Phoenix Pad Co., 113 F ... 629, 51 C.C.A ... ...
-
Bradley v. Eccles
... ... N. Y. & N. H. A. S. Co. (C. C.) 32 F. 79; ... American Coat Pad Co. of B. C. v. Phoenix Pad Co., ... 51 C. C. A ... ...