Welin Davit & Boat Corporation v. CM LANE LIFE BOAT CO., 4427.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1930
• Docket Number: No. 4427.,4427.
• Citation: 38 F.2d 685
• Parties: WELIN DAVIT & BOAT CORPORATION v. C. M. LANE LIFE BOAT CO., Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

38 F.2d 685 (1930)

WELIN DAVIT & BOAT CORPORATION v. C. M. LANE LIFE BOAT CO., Inc.

No. 4427.

District Court, E. D. New York.

February 28, 1930.

Darby & Darby, of New York City (Samuel E. Darby, Jr., and John S. Bradley, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Charles H. Wilson, of New York City, for defendant.

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is a suit in equity in which plaintiff seeks relief by injunction and damages for the alleged infringement of patent No. 1,140,469, issued by the United States Patent Office to Andreas P. Lundin, assignor to Welin Marine Equipment Company, for improvements in boats, granted May 25, 1915.

Defendant has answered interposing the defenses of invalidity and noninfringement.

The title of the plaintiff is unquestioned.

The invention relates to improvements in boats, particularly adapted for use as life boats.

Among the objects and features of the invention the inventor says, with reference to those that are material in this suit:

"By the use of my invention two or more similar shaped efficient life boats of increased stability and buoyancy, and of substantially as great seating capacity as the ordinary non-stowable life boat, may be readily stowed one on top of the other; the topmost boat will be capable of being loaded without preliminary adjustment or change of form; all parts of canvas or other similar flexible material heretofore used in collapsible life boats and which has proven unsatisfactory is eliminated. * * *

"The preferred form of my invention comprises a metallic shell having a substantially flat bottom and a well of oblong boxshape configuration, the sides of which well are reinforced and kept rigid by the usual marginal and cross seats and in any other well known way. * * *

"I also preferably provide what I shall term supplementary buoyant sides of balsa wood which are connected to the flat sides of the metallic shell in any suitable manner and round out the symmetrical contour of the boat."

"Another feature of my invention is the provision of a rigid metallic shell having flat sides with what I shall term `supplementary sides' of highly buoyant material and preferably of balsa wood. I preferably so form such supplementary sides as to round out the contour of the boat. These supplementary sides may be secured to the metallic shell plate by lashing the same to the sides of the metallic shell or in any other suitable manner, and will not only materially add to the strength and stability of the life boat but will serve as fenders or guards to prevent injury to the boat in the event that it be bumped against the vessel in launching. Balsa wood when properly treated to close its pores is highly buoyant and will have substantially the same degree of buoyancy as would for instance metallic airtight compartments of the same size, and furthermore in view of the fact that these supplementary sides do not form an integral part of the hull proper they may be ground to pieces or entirely destroyed by impact with the sides of the vessel without injuring the water-tight qualities of the boat."

This suit is based upon claims 2 and 4. Claim 2 reads as follows: "A boat comprising a rigid metallic shell comprising rounded fore and aft sections and an amidship section having a well polygonal in conformation, provided with seats and having flat outer sides, supplementary sides of highly buoyant material connected to the amidship section outer sides of the metallic shell to round out the contour of the boat, add to its stability and serve as fenders."

Claim 4 is substantially the same as claim 2, with the exception that the buoyant supplementary sides are stated to be "composed of balsa wood having its pores closed against the admission of water."

There is no patent or publication of the prior art, pleaded as an anticipation, which suggests the combination of elements found in the patent in suit, nor are all of the necessary elements found in any two of them.

An anticipation structure cannot be built up from various instances of the prior art where individual elements of the claimed combination are shown. Carnes Artificial Limb Co. v. Dilworth Arm Co. (D. C.) 273 F. 838, 842.

The Hall patent, No. 242,448, is for a life raft, and shows a boat nested in a raft of cork.

The Holmes patent, No. 248,097, shows a life boat constructed from any ordinary boat by simply attaching to it, on the inner and outer sides, air-tight metal tubes and alternating layers of cork.

The Duval patent, No. 281,622, shows a boat the sides of which are pitched inward from about the water line to the rail, with plates of cork countersunk in the sides, and secured thereto and conforming to the curve of the sides of the boat.

The Lovold patent, No. 429,928, shows a boat with a rectangular well, and a longitudinal exteriorly projecting hollow portion constituting a hollow keel, which when inverted on the deck may be employed for use as an ordinary deck seat.

Hussey patent, No. 497,375, shows a raft which may be folded together and is of interest in this litigation because it mentions balsa wood as a buoyant material.

Bluemcke patent, No. 544,608, shows a collapsible boat of canvas and rubber.

The defendant also offered other patents and publications to show the prior state of the art, but not as anticipations; but its expert witness confined his testimony to the following, in addition to those pleaded as anticipations, and I will only consider them:

Lukin patent (British), No. 1502, of 1785. There are no drawings attached to this patent, but it provides for attaching to the outside of boats and vessels, of the common or any other form, projecting gunwales made solid of any light material that will repel the water, or hollow and water-tight, or...