Brookfield v. Novelty Glass Mfg. Co.

Decision Date15 August 1903
PartiesBROOKFIELD et al. v. NOVELTY GLASS MFG. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Syllabus by the Court.

Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of patent No. 542,565, dated July 9 1895, granted to Seraphin Kribs, assignor to William Brookfield, for 'Improvements in Presses for Making Screw-Insulators,' are valid and were infringed by the defendant.

Claim 1 of patent No. 532,973, dated January 22, 1895, granted to Seraphin Kribs, assignor to William Brookfield, for 'Improvements in Screw Presses for Forming Insulators,' is of a subsidiary nature and of narrow scope; and, in view of the prior art, if it can be sustained at all, must receive such a narrow construction as to negative the charge of infringement by the defendant.

Kenyon & Kenyon, for complainants.

Walter H. Bacon and Charles M. Catlin, for defendants.

BRADFORD District Judge.

The bill in this case was filed by William Brookfield, a citizen of New York, against the Novelty Glass Manufacturing Company a corporation of New Jersey, charging infringement of letters patent of the United States Nos. 542,565 and 532,973, and containing the usual prayers. Brookfield recently having died, the suit is prosecuted by his executrix and executors. Both patents were issued to Seraphin Kribs as assignor to Brookfield. Patent No. 542,565 was applied for July 5, 1894 bears date July 9, 1895, and is for 'Improvements in Presses for Making Screw-Insulators '. Patent No. 532,973 was applied for September 6, 1894, bears date January 22 1895, and is for 'Improvements in Screw-Presses for Forming Insulators '. Patent No. 542,565 contains ten claims. The charge of infringement has been restricted to claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. They are as follows:

'1. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, and a movable mold adapted to travel from the actuating rod to the spindle substantially as described.

2. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, and a movable support for the mold substantially as described.

3. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, a movable support for the mold, and a lock for holding the support with the mold in operative position relatively to the actuating rod and spindle substantially as described.

6. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle, adapted to engage the screw plunger, and a movable mold adapted to travel from the actuating rod to the spindle, said actuating rod and spindle being independent of one another substantially as described.

7. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a movable mold adapted to travel from the actuating rod to the spindle, and independent actuating levers for the rod and the spindle respectively substantially as described.

8. An actuating rod provided with a detachable screw plunger, combined with a rotary spindle adapted to engage the screw plunger, a mold, a movable support for the mold, and a standard for supporting the actuating rod and spindle and about which the support is movable substantially as described.'

Infringement by the defendant of all the above quoted claims is admitted by its counsel either by stipulation or brief of argument. The question of liability for such infringement wholly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Brookfield v. Elmer Glass Works
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 28, 1906
    ...... as described.'. . . . The. patent was sustained as a valid one in Brookfield et al. v. Novelty Glass Manufacturing Company (C.C.) 124 F. 551. The defense in the present case is merely that of. noninfringement. In the proofs, reference has ......
  • Novelty Glass Mfg. Co. v. Brookfield
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • June 1, 1909
    ...on screw pins affixed to the crossarms of the supporting poles. The patent was sustained and found infringed by Judge Bradford ((C.C.) 124 F. 551); and, upon an account being taken realized by the defendants, amounting to $29,910.48, were allowed to the complainants by Judge Lanning, but da......
  • Brookfield v. Elmer Glassworks
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 16, 1904
    ...... a decree of this court rendered in the case of Brookfield. v. Novelty Glass Manufacturing Company (C.C.) 124 F. 551. . . The. patent is for certain ......
  • Brookfield v. Novelty Glass Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 16, 1904

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