Schnitzer v. California Corrugated Culvert Co.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10334.,10334. |
| Citation | 140 F.2d 275 |
| Parties | SCHNITZER et al. v. CALIFORNIA CORRUGATED CULVERT CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. S. Middleton, of Portland, Ore., for appellants.
Geisler & Geisler, Theo. J. Geisler, and L. R. Geisler, all of Portland, Ore., and Wm. S. Graham, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before GARRECHT, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from an interlocutory decree holding valid and infringed letters patent No. 1,747,942, issued to Karl Lanninger. Lanninger is an enemy alien, and appellee Crowley, as Alien Property Custodian, was substituted as plaintiff in his stead. Appellee California Corrugated Culvert Company is a licensee of the patentee.
The invention relates to conduits for conducting water for irrigation and other purposes, and specifically to the joints between the conduit pipes. The purpose of the invention, it is said, was to provide a joint sufficiently flexible to permit of the pipes' being laid over irregular ground, and readily disconnectible so as to permit of the easy removal of a line of pipes from one area to another. As described in the specifications, the coupling sleeve has an internally threaded cylindrical neck screwed on the threaded end of a pipe. The other neck of the sleeve is also cylindrical but smooth so that the end of the companion pipe can be inserted through the neck "and through the hat shaped rubber packing," the "flange" of which "is held in a recess" of the sleeve. The cup of the rubber packing fits tightly over the end of the inserted pipe, and this pipe is held fast to the sleeve by means of a hinge.
There are six claims, of which claim 3 is the only one in suit. This claim is as follows: "A pipe joint in connection with pipes one of which has an unthreaded end, a rigid coupling sleeve for coupling said pipes into which said unthreaded end extends, said sleeve having an interior annular groove in the inner surface, a packing of elastic material in said coupling sleeve consisting of a free cylindrical part frictionally enclosing the unthreaded pipe end and having a flange frictionally retained in the groove of said sleeve, and means for hingedly securing said sleeve on the pipe having the unthreaded end."
This is a combination patent, all the elements of which are concededly old. The rubber packing, preventing leakage and permitting flexibility of the joint, is the crux or key element of the combination. Appellants argue that Lanninger's invention is a mere aggregation of parts, and that it was anticipated. We find it unnecessary to consider the validity of the patent since we think it was not shown to be infringed.
Appellees manufactured a few sleeves, or couplings, which conform closely to claim 3 as illustrated in the drawings and specifications of the patent. One or more of these models were introduced in evidence. The "hat" packing used in this model has a flange perpendicular to the axis of the sleeve, and this flange is retained in the annular groove into which it fits tightly. The parties disagree as to whether the flange is "clamped" or "retained" or "held" in the groove, but it is clear that the packing stays in place by reason of its very shape and the shape of the recess into which it fits. This coupling was expensive to make and it was not manufactured commercially. The couplings appellees have made commercially and have successfully marketed have a rounded and relatively shallow groove and they do not employ the hat packing. They employ instead a "U" or "V" shaped packing, which is the same type of packing as that used by appellants in their alleged infringing device. Appellants therefore deny that their device is an infringement upon the combination specifically claimed in the Lanninger patent.
An understanding of the infringement issue can not be had without a more definite description of the appearance and functions of these two types of packings. A "flange" or "hat" packing has the appearance implied from its name. The flange corresponds roughly to the rim of a hat, and the cup to the crown with the top portion thereof removed. A "V" or "U"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Carbonic Eng. Co. v. Natural Carb. Prod.
...Co. v. Silverman, 9 Cir., 121 F.2d 181; Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co., 9 Cir., 137 F.2d 722; Schnitzer v. California Corrugated Culvert Co., 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 275; Richard Irvin & Co. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 2 Cir., 121 F.2d 429; Aero Spark Plug Co. v. B. G. Corp., 2 C......
-
Pointer v. Six Wheel Corporation
...Iron Works v. Wood, 9 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 416; Wilson v. Byron Jackson Co., 9 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 644; Schnitzer v. California Corrugated Culvert Co., 9 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 275. And see, Altoona Publix Theaters v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 1935, 294 U.S. 477, 55 S.Ct. 455, 79 L.Ed. 1005;......
-
Martin v. Ford Alexander Corporation
...Corp., 2 Cir., 1941, 116 F.2d 663, 665; Apex Electrical Mfg. Co. v. Maytag Co., supra Note 17; Schnitzer v. California Corrugated Culvert Co., 9 Cir., 1944, 140 F.2d 275, 276; Pointer v. Six-Wheel Corp., 9 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 153. 19 John Waldron Corp. v. Equitable Paper Bag Co., Inc., 3 C......
-
Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories
...denied 335 U.S. 864, 69 S.Ct. 129, 93 L. Ed. 410. 9 Craftint Mfg. Co. v. Baker, 9 Cir., 94 F. 2d 369, 373; Schnitzer v. California Corrugated Culvert Co., 9 Cir., 140 F.2d 275, 276. 10 Celite Corporation v. Dicalite Co., 9 Cir., 96 F.2d 242, 248, certiorari denied 305 U.S. 633, 59 S.Ct. 101......