Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. v. Belcher

Decision Date24 July 1924
Docket Number1853.
PartiesKRENTLER-ARNOLD HINGE LAST CO. v. BELCHER.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

James R. Hodder, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Ellis Spear, Jr., of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

LOWELL District Judge.

This is a suit for the infringement of letters patent No. 842,319 granted to G. A. Krentler on January 29, 1907, and letters patent No. 969,244, granted to Rudolph Carl on September 6 1910, relating to lasts used in the manufacture of shoes. The defendant denies that he infringes the Krentler patent alleges that the Carl patent is void, and sets up by way of counterclaim that the plaintiff infringes letters patent No 1,195,266, granted to Otto A. Peterson on August 22, 1916, one-half interest in which is owned by him.

The defendant had for many years been a licensee of the plaintiff under a license covering many patents, which was granted first in 1902. The license was canceled in 1913, and a second one issued, which enumerated, among many other patents, the Krentler patent. It did not include the Carl patent, though that patent then belonged to the plaintiff, and no specific license was ever granted the defendant under the Carl patent. In 1919 the defendant canceled the license, but by arrangement with the plaintiff continued to make lasts covered by some of the plaintiff's patents, and to buy parts, which the plaintiff sold to the defendant; this being its method of collecting royalties for the use of the invention. One of the clauses in the license provided that a licensee could not question the validity of any of the patents mentioned in the license. After canceling the license, the defendant made lasts which he contended were covered by the Peterson patent, owned by him.

A preliminary motion of the defendant was that the bill of complaint should be dismissed as to the Krentler patent, as it had expired, and no injunctive relief could be granted under it. This motion was denied, the court at that stage of the case not being satisfied that the defendant had not estopped himself by being a licensee under the patent. The motion might well have been granted, but, in the view which the court takes of the Krentler patent, no right of the defendant was affected by the denial of the motion.

The first contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is estopped to deny the validity of either the Krentler or the Carl patent, because he had been a licensee, enjoying the benefits of the invention covered by the patents, for many years. This contention is unsound as to the Carl patent, which never was mentioned in any license, and therefore not affected by the clause of the license above described. As to the Krentler patent, the defendant contends that he is not estopped to deny its validity after having canceled the license, as he never made use of the invention covered by the patent, either before or after the cancellation of the license, but only of certain other patents covered by it. The facts in the case support the contention of the defendant; for the reasons hereinafter given, I am of opinion that the defendant's lasts do not infringe the Krentler patent.

The next contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant's lasts, Plaintiff's Exhibits 3 and 4, which are stipulated by the defendant to be lasts made by him, infringe the Krentler patent. That patent, however, is, in my opinion, a very limited one. The patents in suit all relate to lasts on which shoes are made, and more particularly to lasts called 'hinged' lasts. Shoes were formerly made only on solid lasts, which were objectionable because, after the shoe had been made, it was difficult to withdraw the last from the shoe without damaging the upper. Some years ago various kinds of hinged lasts were devised, the purpose of which was to enable the lasts to be withdrawn from the shoe by moving the heel part of the last forward toward the fore part, and thereby decreasing its length, so that it could be withdrawn from the shoe without stretching the upper. Various kinds of hinged lasts were known in the prior art; one which had been well known for some time, and was covered by a patent now expired, had a so-called 'knuckle' joint. This was a last with a projection on the heel part or the fore part, which fitted into a corresponding socket in the other part. The knuckle was made in a circular form and adapted to turn in a corresponding circular recess. One objection to this form of last was that it would not withstand the strain to which it was subjected in the manufacture of shoes, but would bend or buckle before the shoe was completed. Various expedients were adopted to remedy this defect. The specific expedient adopted by the plaintiff in the patent in suit was the forming of a protuberance or 'angular surface' on the periphery of the circular knuckle joint, which would engage with the socket and make it more difficult to turn the shoe from its extended or collapsed position, or vice versa. In the Krentler patent in suit the following disclaimer is contained:

'In the present case I limit my claims to the species of contacting last faces having a co-operating angular surface for securing the desired locking effects. * * * '

The claims, three in number, all mention the rigid angular or wedging surface. Great stress is laid on the expression, contained in claims 1 and 2, that the last is 'constructed to maintain the parts at rest when the last is collapsed, and to offer increasing resistance in moving away from collapsed position' (claim 1), and 'being constructed to offer increasing resistance to moving away from the lengthened position' (claim 2). The plaintiff strenuously contends that any method of providing increased resistance is covered by the claims, and points out the fact that the patentee makes the following statement in a part of his patent before the disclaimer which I have already quoted. The statement is as follows:

'The principle upon which the locking device operates is the crowding or wedging of one part past another when the heel part is turned on its pivot, and I intend to claim the same herein broadly.'

I am of the opinion that this expression does not aid the plaintiff. Whatever may have been his intention, he included the disclaimer and referred in each claim to the 'rigid angular or wedging surface' (first claim), 'angular or wedging surface' (second claim), and 'protuberance on the fore part extension' (third claim). There is no such angular surface in the Exhibits...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Leman v. Hinge Last Co
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 15 Febrero 1932
    ...of the present petitioners for the infringement of their patent (Peterson patent, No. 1,195,266, for hinged lasts for shoes) was sustained. 300 F. 834. The decree, as modified, was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 13 F.(2d) 796. The decree perpetually enjoined the respondent from m......
  • Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. v. Leman
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • 14 Febrero 1928
    ...on its later patent to W. A. Krentler, No. 1,459,061, granted June 19, 1923, as a defense to this counter suit. The District Court (300 F. 834) decided that the first Krentler patent was not infringed and that the only claim of the Carl patent which was relied on (claim 1) was invalid. It f......
  • Meyers v. Apco Mossberg Corporation, 3330.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • 15 Febrero 1932
    ...well-known expedient, in the making of a device, to a specific form of the device with which it had not been used. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. v. Belcher (D. C.) 300 F. 834. Invention in improvements is to be found only in discovering a new principle or employing new means embodying old ......

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