Anakin Lock Works v. Dillon Lock Works
| Decision Date | 30 July 1923 |
| Docket Number | 6268. |
| Parties | ANAKIN LOCK WORKS v. DILLON LOCK WORKS et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John C Carpenter, of Chicago, Ill. (Munday, Clarke & Carpenter and Carl S. Lloyd, all of Chicago, Ill., on the brief), for appellant.
Before STONE, Circuit Judge, and MORRIS and FARIS, District Judges.
Appellant who was plaintiff below, sued defendant for alleged infringement of its patent No. 1,021,651, issued on the 26th day of March, 1912, for an auxiliary locking mechanism for safes and similar receptacles. Being cast below, on the ground that there was no infringement, plaintiff appeals. The defenses urged below, in so far as we deem it necessary to consider them, were: (a) That the device of defendant did not infringe the patent of plaintiff, even if such patent be valid; (b) that plaintiff's patent is invalid, by reason of anticipation and for lack of invention; and (c) that plaintiff had no such title to the patent sued on, as warranted an action in its name.
The trial court found for plaintiff upon the issues of the validity of the patent and of plaintiff's title thereto but found for defendant upon the issue of infringement, and dismissed plaintiff's bill. From this judgment plaintiff appealed in the usual mode. The claim in its patent, which plaintiff contends was infringed by the device of defendant, is numbered 5, and reads thus:
'In combination, a safe comprising a door having a main locking mechanism therefor, inactive auxiliary locking means for said safe, arranged to co-operate with the door to lock the same closed, independently of the main locking mechanism, and a flexible connection secured to the auxiliary locking means at one end, and extending across the main locking mechanism in the path of abnormal movement thereof; said connection being permanently connected at its opposite end to the door aforesaid.'
Safe doors, combination locks, or main locking mechanisms, and inactive auxiliary locking means, are all old in the art. The crucial question in the case is whether defendant has infringed as much of the above claim as provides as a part of the invention 'a flexible connection, secured to the auxiliary locking means at one end, and extending across the main locking mechanism in the path of abnormal movement thereof.'
Except for this phase of alleged similarity, the claim of plaintiff and the device of defendant urged as infringing are wholly dissimilar. The device of plaintiff, when the wire (i.e., flexible means) is pulled, or stressed, pulls down a lug, which lug is thus drawn from a recess in a single independent bolt, in which this lug normally engages, and a spring throws forward this independent bolt, which bolt, engaging in a prepared recess in the jamb of the safe door (at almost any desired point), again locks the door. This wire, or flexible means, is operated by increased stress created when the main locking mechanism is pushed from its normal position. It will be noted that the claim does not call for an attachment of the wire, or flexible means, to the main locking mechanism. It simply extends across such main locking mechanism, and functions necessarily, only when the abnormal movement of the latter is at an angle, approximately, of 90degrees to the stress put upon the wire, or flexible connection. If the main locking mechanism move abnormally, but parallel to the line of stress, the auxiliary locking mechanism will not function, except in the presence, also, of the rectangular movement. Ordinarily, in actual practice, such parallel movement could not occur.
The device of defendant, urged as infringing, locks the bolt plate or bolt bar of the original locking mechanism, which bolt plate or bolt bar, by means of eccentric cams, operates the bolts (in number usually from 6 to 24), which engage in recesses in the sides, top, and bottom of the door. There is a wire, or flexible means, which is attached in a stressed condition to the main locking mechanism by passing around a screw and, passing thence, is attached to some part of the safe door. When this wire is burnt, cut, or broken by any abnormal movement of the main locking mechanism, or when, by any movement or means, stress is removed from this wire, a lug is released, which, disengaging from a spring-operated block, allows the latter to swing on its axis and to be thrust against the bolt bar, thus preventing movement of the bolt bar, thereby relocking all of the 6 to 24 bolts, theretofore held locked by the main locking mechanism.
These differences inhere and are apparent: (a) In the device of plaintiff, a pull, or jerk, or stress is necessary to operate this wire; in the device of defendant, the opposite is true, for the wire functions and the device is operated by a release of stress, either by burning, breaking, or otherwise severing the wire, or by a movement of the main locking mechanism in the direction of the theretofore inactive auxiliary locking means. So, if this wire is cut, broken, or burnt, or if the main...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freeman v. Altvater
...B.-B. Co. (C. C. A. 8) 106 F. 693, 710; Mallon v. Wm. C. Gregg & Co. (C. C. A. 8) 137 F. 68, 78; Anakin Lock Works v. Dillon Lock Works (C. C. A. 8) 292 F. 45, 47; Moslank v. Kulage (C. C. A. 8) 55 F.(2d) 835, 839; McKays Co. v. Penn Electric Switch Co. (C. C. A. 8) 60 F.(2d) 762, If the Fr......
-
TH Symington & Son v. Symington Co.
...plaintiff's claims. Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U. S. 537, 568, 18 S. Ct. 707, 42 L. Ed. 1136; Anakin Lock Works v. Dillon Lock Works, 292 F. 45 (C. C. A. 8); Skelton v. Baldwin Tool Works, 58 F.(2d) 221, 225, 227 (C. C. A. 4); Sanitary Refrig. Co. v. Winters, 280 U. S. 30, ......
-
Evr-Klean Seat Pad Co. v. FIRE-STONE TIRE & RUBBER CO.
...to plaintiff's rights, since no primary patent was involved, but only a secondary one for improvement features. Anakin Lock Works v. Dillon Lock Works, 8 Cir., 292 F. 45; Moon-Hopkins Billing Machine Co. v. Dalton Adding Machine Co., 8 Cir., 236 F. 936. And, if defendant's reinforcement str......
-
Hyman v. FW Woolworth Co.
...perform different functions or in a different way, or produce a substantially different result." In Anakin Lock Works Co. v. Dillon Lock Works et al. (C. C. A. 8) 292 F. 45, at page 48, this court "Infringement involves substantial identity, and to constitute an infringement the device made......