Standard Typewriter Co. v. Standard Folding Typewriter Sales Co.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1915 |
| Docket Number | 47. |
| Citation | 223 F. 779 |
| Parties | STANDARD TYPEWRITER CO. v. STANDARD FOLDING TYPEWRITER SALES CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
This cause comes here upon an appeal from a decree entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 2, 1913, which refused an injunction to the Standard Typewriter Company, plaintiff, restraining the Standard Folding Typewriter Sales Company et al., defendants, on charges of infringement of claims 1 and 5 of letters patent of the United States, No. 754,242 and claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, and 7 of letters patent of the United States, No. 948,553.
The Standard Typewriter Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. The Standard Folding Typewriter Sales Company is a corporation also organized and existing under the laws of the state of New York. James A. Whitcomb, Eugene E. St. Germain, and Arthur W. Buckwell are citizens of the United States, and of the state of New York, and each of the defendants resides in the Southern District of New York and has a regular and established place of business in said district.
Patent No. 754,242 was granted to F. S. Rose on March 8, 1904, for a typewriting machine. And patent No. 948,553 was granted to F S. Rose, deceased, G. F. Rose administrator, on February 8 1910. The first of these patents was, through mesne conveyances, assigned to the complainant, and by assignment complainant also claims the exclusive right to make, use, and vend the inventions and discoveries patented in and by letters patent No. 948,553. A suit was brought to restrain the alleged infringement of both patents. A motion for a preliminary injunction was made and was granted as to claims 1 and 5 of patent No. 754,242 but was denied as to patent No. 948,553.
An appeal was taken to this court from an order granting the injunction as to the first patent and the order granting the injunction was affirmed. 181 F. 500. Subsequent to the granting of the preliminary injunction defendant discovered the Carmona patent, No. 661,849, which had been granted prior to the patents issued to Rose. Upon motion of defendants an order was made amending the answer to include the Carmona and other patents among those which defendants alleged fully and clearly described the inventions, or substantial and material parts thereof, claimed under the patents in suit.
The case came on for hearing under the amended answer, and, after taking of testimony, it was decided that claims 1 and 5 of patent No. 754,242 were anticipated by the Carmona patent, and that claims 1 to 7 of patent No. 948,553 were invalidated by the Sholes patent, No. 568,630, and so much of the bill of complaint as related to these claims was dismissed. The defendants conceded at the trial that claims 35 and 44 of patent No. 948,553 were valid, and a perpetual injunction was ordered to prevent their infringement by the defendants, who were also ordered to account to plaintiff for profits and damages as to those particular claims.
The preliminary injunction previously granted was vacated.
William R. Davis, Charles S. Jones, and Livingston Gifford, all of New York City, for appellant.
Julian S. Wooster and Clifton v. Edwards, both of New York City, for appellees.
Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
This case involves the validity of the Rose patent, No. 754,242, for improvements in typewriters. The patentee realized that it would meet with public favor and answer a public need if a typewriting machine could be so constructed that it could be conveniently and readily transported or carried from place to place as part of one's ordinary hand baggage. To meet the demand for such a machine, the patentee made a machine that was light in weight and capable of being folded into a compact package, but which could also be readily unfolded into operative condition. The folding and unfolding character of the machine was secured by means that in no way interfered with the proper operative functions of the parts. The folding capacity was obtained by minimizing the cubical dimensions of the machine without disorganizing or disassembling the parts. An unmechanical operator could turn the parts into their folded positions and secure less cubical dimensions for transportation purposes, and could also, by turning them into their unfolded operative position, have the parts at once ready for use.
Mr. Rose states in his specification that his invention relates to improvements in typewriters, in which he seeks 'to produce a new construction of the support or carriage for the typeplaten or cylindrical roller which enables the same to be folded into compact relation to the keyboard, thus making provision for ready and convenient transportation of the instrument. ' The folding of the platen carriage reduced the height of the machine and made a very compact package, with all the delicate parts of the operative mechanism below the upper bars of the machine when the carriage was in its folded position. The machine was thus rendered transportable in a small and convenient package. At the same time the delicate operating parts were protected by the upstanding and horizontal bars of the frame and carriage support.
When this cause was before us in 1910, the question was whether the court below committed error in granting a preliminary injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the patent. We then held no error had been committed and sustained the injunction notwithstanding the patent in suit had never been adjudicated, as we thought the case came within well-recognized exceptions to the rule that an injunction will not issue upon an unadjudicated patent. In the opinion of the court written by Judge Noyes we said:
But before the case came on for final hearing the defendants discovered the Carmona patent, No. 661,849, and upon motion an order was made amending the answer to include it and certain other patents which need not now be mentioned.
Manuel S. Carmona was a citizen of the Republic of Mexico, where he resided. On February 2, 1900, he filed in the United States Patent Office an application for a patent for a new and improved typewriter and the patent was issued to him on November 13, 1900. This patent was regarded in the court below as an anticipation of the claims made in the Rose patents. And the question which is now presented to the court is whether the court below was justified in its conclusion that claims 1 and 5 of the Rose patent were anticipated by Carmona and were void. Frank S. Rose, at the time he applied for his patents, was a resident of Newark, in the state of New Jersey. In his specification upon which patent No. 754,242 was issued, Rose declared:
He defined claim 1 of the patent as follows:
'(1) In a typewriter, a foldable support for a platen carriage having one of its members movable to an abnormal position in overhanging relation to a keyboard.'
And he defined claim 5 of the patent as follows:
'(5) In a typewriter, the combination of a two-part foldable support and a carriage provided with a platen and mounted on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox Typewriter Co. v. Corona Typewriter Co.
...... different patents for typewriters, combining the standard. keyboard and type-bar construction, with the capacity for. folding into ...v. Standard. Folding Typewriter Sales Co., 181 F. 500, 104 C.C.A. 248, on an appeal from an order granting a ......