Bradley v. Eccles

• Decision Date: 05 March 1903
• Parties: BRADLEY v. ECCLES
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

120 F. 947

BRADLEY v. ECCLES

United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York.

March 5, 1903

Howard P. Dennison, for complainant.

William A. Megrath, for defendant.

On the 5th day of January, 1903, on the bill of complaint and certain affidavits, an order was granted in this action restraining the defendant, Richard Eccles, from making and selling, in infringement of reissued letters patent No 11,260, dated August 16, 1892, his thill coupling, which he claims the right to make and sell under letters patent No 714,163, dated November 25, 1902. This restraining order was accompanied by an order to show cause why same should not be continued until the trial and determination of this action on the merits, or until the further order of the court. On the return of said order, the defendant having filed his answer to the bill of complaint, and having read and filed certain affidavits and presented certain exhibits, and full argument having been had, the question is fairly presented whether a case has been made that will justify the court in continuing such restraining order during the pending of the action.

RAY District Judge.

From an inspection of the exhibits in this case duly filed, it is evident that the defendant, Richard Eccles, is infringing the complainant's patent, and that the restraining order should be continued in force during the pendency of this action if the complainant's patent is valid. The defendant is manufacturing and selling the precise thing for which a patent was granted to the complainant under reissued letters patent No. 11,260. The defendant has a patent, but apparently it covers a different thing, and the description specifications, and claims are different. If they cover the same thing, with same elements, then defendant's patent is void, but it is not seriously contended such is the case.

The defendant makes no serious claim that he is not infringing the complainant's patent, provided it is valid, but insists that same is void because of prior use and abandonment to the public. In behalf of this contention he makes a very strong case. Indeed, the defense is complete, and demonstrates the invalidity of the complainant's patent, if the statements made by certain witnesses in their affidavits filed herein, and read on the argument of this motion, are to be accepted as true. The complainant files no affidavit in answer, but insists that these witnesses are testifying to matters that occurred so long ago (some 15 years since) that their memory must be unreliable, and that therefore such affidavits ought, on the motion, at least, where there is no opportunity for cross-examination, to be disregarded, or not given full faith and credit according to their terms. These witnesses are entirely disinterested, and speak emphatically and positively, and their statements are free of inherent improbabilities. No reason is discovered for discrediting them. They may and they may not speak mistakenly, or even without knowledge on the subject, but such testimony as theirs is not to be disregarded on the theory that it may be erroneous.

The complainant's reissued letters patent No. 11,260, dated August 16, 1892, claim as follows:

'Having described my invention, what I claim as new, and desire to secure my letters patent, is:

'(1) The combination, with the draft-eye, composed of a fixed section and a movable section, of a spring-arm secured at one end and free at the other, a cam-lever pivoted to the free end of said spring-arm, and a tie attached to the cam-lever outside of its fulcrum, and connecting the cam-lever with the movable section of the draft-eye, whereby the spring-arm exerts a constant pressure upon the movable section, and also holds the cam-lever yieldingly in a locked position, substantially as set forth.

'(2) The combination, with the axle, of a draft-eye, composed of a forwardly projecting fixed section and a movable section hinged to the front end of the fixed section, a spring-arm secured to the axle and projecting forwardly therefrom, a cam-lever hinged to the free front end of the spring-arm, and a tie attached to the cam-lever outside of the fulcrum and connecting the cam-lever with the hinged section of the draft-eye, substantially as set forth.

'(3) In combination with the axle-clip, coupling-pin, fixed lower draft-eye section, h, and the upper eye-section, h, hinged to the front of the fixed section, the spring-arm, C, secured at one end to the clip-tie, and extending from the rear thereof forward underneath the same, the cam-lever, d, hinged to the free end of said spring-arm, and the bail, e, connected to the cam-lever, and adapted to engage the rear end of the hinged eye-section, substantially as set forth.

'(4) The combination, with the front axle and thill-iron, of the clip-tie, C, elongated in the direction lengthwise of the axle, and formed at the center of its length with the draft-eye section, b, axle-clips, C, C, secured to the two ends of said clip-tie, the draft-eye section, b, hinged to the eye-section, b, the spring-arm clamped between the central portion of the clip-tie, and extending from the rear of the clip-tie underneath the same, and forward therefrom, the cam-lever, d, hinged to the free end of said spring-arm, and the bail, e, connected to said cam-lever, and adapted to bear on top of the rear end of the hinged draft-eye section, substantially as described and shown.

'In testimony whereof, I have hereunto signed my name this 26th day of August, 1891. William Henry Hannan.'

The defendant's letters patent, No. 714,163, dated November 25, 1902, claim as follows:

'Having thus described my invention, I claim and desire to secure by letters patent:

'(1) In a shaft or thill coupling, the combination with the draft-bar, a, having a seat for the coupling-pin, of a clip for securing the draft-bar to the axle, a lug or projection, n, depending from said draft bar, a pivoted cap or lever to hold the coupling-pin in the draft-bar seat, a bail to engage said cap or lever and secure it in operative position, a retaining-spring having a vertical pivot connection at one end with the said depending lug or projection, and a lever having a jointed connection with the other end of said retaining-spring and with the said loop or bail, whereby when the said loop or bail is released from the pivoted cap or lever the said retaining-spring and the bail and lever carried thereby may be swung aside horizontally for convenient access to the nuts of the said clip securing the coupling to the axle.

'(2) In a shaft or thill coupling, the combination with a draft-bar having a coupling-pin seat, a cap pivoted to said draft-bar to hold the coupling-pin in the draft-bar seat, a substantially U-shaped retaining-spring having a vertical pivot connection at one end with said draft-bar, upon which said spring and its supported parts may be swung horizontally beneath said draft-bar to permit convenient access to the nuts of the draft-bar-securing clip, a lever pivotally connected with the other end of said retaining-spring, and a bail pivotally connected with said lever, and adapted to engage and hold the said coupling-pin cap in closed position.

'In testimony whereof, I affix my signature in presence of two witnesses.

'Richard Eccles.'

Whatever may have been the purpose or determination of the Patent Office in issuing these patents, or of the patentees in describing the inventions and obtaining them, or whatever may be the proper construction and interpretation of the claims of the parties respectively and above quoted, the fact remains, and cannot be disputed (and this plainly appears by placing the thill coupling made and sold by the defendant...