Hoadley Brake Shoe Co. v. American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co.
| Decision Date | 07 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | 1124. |
| Parties | HOADLEY BRAKE SHOE CO. v. AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE & FOUNDRY CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; Clarence L. Hale, Judge.
Suit in equity by the American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company against the Hoadley Brake Shoe Company for infringement of letters patent No. 651,435, for a railway brake shoe, issued June 12 1900, on application of Gardner W. Chipley. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
For opinion below, see 222 F. 327.
PATENTS 328-- VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-- RAILWAY BRAKE SHOE.
The Chipley patent, No. 651,435, for a railway brake shoe, was not anticipated and discloses patentable invention, which was made by the patentee and is of a fairly broad character. Claims 4, 5, and 6 are not limited to a shoe made in two parts, but apply as well to a continuous shoe. As so construed, held infringed.
Arthur v. Briesen, of New York City (Fred A. Klein, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Frederick P. Fish, of Boston, Mass. (George Cook, of New York City, and J. Lewis Stackpole, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PUTNAM, DODGE, and BINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiff, the American Brake Shoe & Foundry Company, is the owner of United States patent No. 651,435, issued June 12 1900, on the application of Gardner W. Chipley, filed January 18, 1900, Chipley having assigned one half thereof to Charles W. Armbrust, and complains that the defendant, the Hoadley Brake Shoe Company, has infringed claims 4, 5, and 6 of the patent, in its manufacture and sale of brake shoes.
The patent is for a new and useful improvement in railway brake shoes. Claims 4, 5, and 6 read as follows:
The invention comprises two features. The first relates to the provision of a divided or two-part brake shoe, with which we are not particularly concerned. The second feature 'relates to the provision of a brake shoe adapted to receive, and have attached to it the back or rear portion of a partially worn shoe, whereby partially worn shoes may be used completely up by attaching them to and using them with new shoes.'
It appears that prior to Chipley's invention brake shoes, such as were then in vogue, on being worn down to a point where they could not be used further, without injury to the brake head, had to be discarded and go to scrap. To avoid this he conceived the idea of attaching a partially worn brake shoe to the face of a new shoe, so that the old shoe would be completely worn out. In assembling the shoes, the inner or new shoe is attached to the brake head, and the outer or old shoe is attached to the face of the inner one. Attaching and guide lugs are provided on the back of the shoes for securing the inner shoe to the brake head, and on the face of the shoes are recesses into which the attaching and guide lugs on the back of a similar shoe fit and secure it to the face of the inner shoe.
In operation, the outer shoe wears away entirely, and, after the inner shoe is partially worn, it is removed from the brake head, a new shoe is attached to the brake head, the worn shoe is attached to the face of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
I.T.S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co.
...thought of the patentee' has any proper application. See American Shoe Co. v. Hoadley (D.C.) 222 F. 327; same case on appeal (C.C.A.) 227 F. 90. Compare Malignani v. Jasper Marsh (C.C.) 180 F. 442. The construction here adopted does not 'strike down the plaintiff's patent.' It leaves it vit......