Bearings Co. of America v. D.P. Harris Hardware & Mfg. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | 347. |
| Citation | 299 F. 782 |
| Parties | BEARINGS CO. OF AMERICA v. D. P. HARRIS HARDWARE & MFG. CO., Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
William B. Greeley and William A. Redding, both of New York City, for appellant.
George K. Helbert, of Philadelphia, Pa., Seward Davis, of New York City, and Frederick H. Blount, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before HOUGH, MANTON, and MAYER, Circuit Judges.
Letters patent Nos. 1,117,808 and 1,117,943 were issued on November 17, 1914, to Christian F. Dilg. The patents are for ball bearings, and relate to 'ball-holding devices * * * wherein a holder is used, having a series of ball-bearing points to retain the balls, the latter projecting beyond the device, in the inner and outer, and in the upper directions with respect thereto, and it has for its object the provision of an organization of the class described, simple in construction, inexpensive to manufacture, and which operates in a smooth, easy, and noiseless manner in practical use ' They provide a retainer or cage, in which the balls are held in spaced relation and free to rotate.
The District Court dismissed the bill, holding that Dilg was not the first inventor, but that one Hansen was a prior inventor. The patent is No. 600,311, and was granted March 8, 1898 upon an application filed March 1, 1897. The applications for the appellant's patents were filed April 6, 1910. The application upon which the patent No. 1,117,808 was granted bore the serial No. 553,897, and was alleged to be a continuation of an application bearing the serial No.
655,652 filed October 18, 1897. The application upon which the second patent was granted had serial No. 553,898, and was alleged to be a continuation of an application filed February 16, 1900; serial No. 5,434, alleged to be a division of the same original application filed October 18, 1897.
The earliest date assigned for the patents in suit is October 18 1897, and Hansen is dated March 1, 1897. If Hansen was earlier than Dilg, priority of invention is conceded by the appellant. We think the conclusion below that Hansen was a prior inventor by 7 1/2 months has support in the evidence, and that finding is in accord with the weight of the evidence. Having antedated the filing of the application for the patents in suit, the burden is upon the appellant to carry the date of invention still further back by evidence that convinces...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson & Johnson v. Kendall Company
...proceedings, (United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Brooklyn Wood Heel Corp., 77 F.2d 263 (C.A.2, 1935); Bearings Co. of America v. D. P. Harris Hardware & Mfg. Co., 299 F. 782 (C.A. 2, 1924)). 74 Court pointed out defense of abandonment was not pleaded or noticed before 75 He cited In re Roberts,......
-
Cleeton v. Hewlett-Packard Company
...v. Sacks, 81 F. 403 (C.C.A. 1); Dey Time Register Co. v. W. H. Bundy Recording Co., 178 F. 812 (C.C.A. 2); Bearings Co. v. Harris Hardware & Mfg. Co., 299 F. 782 (C.C.A. 2). It makes no difference how the question arises; whether the patentee is carrying back his own invention, or a suppose......
-
Johnson & Johnson v. CB Stenvall, Inc.
...case * * *"; United Shoe Machinery Corp. v. Brooklyn Wood Heel Corp., 2 Cir., 1935, 77 F.2d 263, 264; Bearings Co. of America v. D. P. Harris Hardware & Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 1924, 299 F. 782; I find that the evidence adduced here meets that high standard and establishes an invention date of De......
-
Pleatmaster, Inc. v. JL Golding Mfg. Co.
...Brooks v. Sacks, 1 Cir., 81 F. 403; Dey Time Register Co. v. W. H. Bundy Recording Co., 2 Cir., 178 F. 812; Bearings Co. v. D. P. Harris Hardware & Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 299 F. 782. It makes no difference how the question arises; whether the patentee is carrying back his own invention, or a sup......