Burt v. Evory

• Decision Date: 03 February 1890
• Citation: 133 U.S. 349,33 L.Ed. 647,10 S.Ct. 394
• Parties: BURT et al. v. EVORY et al. 1
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

133 U.S. 349

10 S.Ct. 394

33 L.Ed. 647

BURT et al. v. EVORY et al.¹

February 3, 1890.

Geo. D. Noyes, for appellants.

F. H. Betts, for appellees.

LAMAR, J.

This is a suit in equity, brought in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, by Alexander F. Evory, Alonzo Heston, and J. B. Belcher against John W. Burt and Fred. Packard, composing the firm of Burt & Packard, for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 59,375, issued to said Evory and Heston, November 6, 1866, for an 'improvement in boots and shoes.' The bill filed December 9, 1880, alleged the issue of said letters patent to the plaintiffs Evory and Heston; the assignment of a one-half interest therein to thep laintiff Belcher the granting of an exclusive license to the National Rubber Company to manufacture rubber goods containing the in vention patented; and the infringement by the defendants, which was said to consist in their having made and sold shoes and gaiters constructed in accordance with the specifications and drawings contained in letters patent No. 205,129, granted to the defendant Packard, June 18, 1878, and also other shoes and gaiters, all of which contained the invention in the plaintiff's patent. The bill prayed an injunction, an accounting, and damages. The defenses pleaded in the answer were non-infringement; an anticipation of the plaintiffs' invention by certain English patents, dated in 1856 and 1860, respectively; and want of novelty in the invention, because, long prior to the issue of plaintiffs' patent, one Jacob O. Patten, of Philadelphia, had manufactured and sold shoes constructed on the same plan as described in that patent. Issue was joined, proofs were taken, and on the 3d of February, 1883, the circuit court entered a decree sustaining the plaintiff's patent, and adjudging that there had been an infringement of it by the defendants; and accordingly referred the case to a master for an account of profits, and for the determination of damages, if any, by reason of such infringement. Evory v. Burt, 15 Fed. Rep. 112. October 13, 1884, the master filed his report, in which he found that the defendants had made and sold 41,297 pairs of shoes which infringed the plaintiffs' patent, but that, as they made no difference in price between shoes containing the invention of the plaintiffs and those without it, they therefore made no profit from such infringement; that Belcher was the only one of the plaintiffs who was engaged in making or selling shoes, and, as he made and sold less than 1,000 shoes containing the invention in the patent, he was not damaged by reason of defendants' infringement; but that, as the evidence showed that the plaintiffs had an established royalty of three cents a pair for shoes made under that patent, and had issued licenses and sold stamps to persons desiring to use their patent, the licensees paying such royalty, the defendants should pay the plaintiffs that royalty on the number of shoes made by them containing the infringing device, to-wit, 41,297 pairs; that is, the sum of three cents a pair, or $1,238.91. Exceptions were filed to this report, but they were overruled by the court, and on the 29th of January, 1886, a final decree was entered confirming it, and assessing damages in the sum of $1,238.91, that being the amount of the royalty found due by the master. An appeal from that decree brings the case here.

The material parts of the specification of the plaintiffs' patent and the drawings are as follows: 'Our said invention consists in a novel mode of constructing shoes and gaiters, whereby the ordinary elastic goring at the sides and the tedious lacing up at the front are both dispensed with, while at the same time the tops will expand to receive the foot, and fit neatly and closely around the ankle when the shoe is on, being also water-tight to the extreme top of the shoe. * * * Figure 1 represents a side elevation of our invention; Fig. 2 a plan or top view of the same; and Figs. 3 and 4 represent detached views or patterns of the several parts. Similar letters of reference in the several figures indicate like parts of our invention. A represents the front of the shoe, and has attached to its rear edge, a, as shown, a gore flap, (marked 'D.') B represents the back of the shoe, and has attached to its front edge, b, as shown, a corresponding gore flap, (marked 'C.') The front and back are sewed together at those parts of their contiguous edges marked 'a" and 'b',' and the flap, C, is arranged upon the flap, D, bringing their corresponding edges, c and d, upon each other, which are then sewed together; the two flaps thus arranged forming a double et ension gore upon each side of the shoe, which readily expands to admit the foot, and which may then be folded forward over the instep, and be secured by a buckle or knot, or by a suitable lacing, as desired. * * * We do not claim, broadly, for an extension gore flap inserted in the ankle of gaiter shoes, for this is fully covered by the broad claim of Samuel Babbit's patent, issued March 7, 1865, to which our patent will be subject; but our mode of construction is an improvement upon that, and all the other modes since patented, in the following particulars viz.: First, it requires less stock in its construction, and is therefore cheaper than those in which the gore is inserted in the heel; second, it is neater in appearance, and, being adjustable to the ankle, it may be fitted even where there is a variation in the size of the shoe, thus rendering it more available in the construction of shoes for sale at wholesale; third, it avoids the wrinkle in the heel in Babbit's construction of shoes, which, being exposed to the friction of the leg of the pantaloon, soon wears into a hole; fourth, by giving expansion forward to the vamp in front of the ankle it admits of the more easy introduction of the foot, and allows a neater fit than is attainable when the gore is in the heel. What we do claim as our invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, is: A shoe when constructed with an expansion gore flap, C, D, the external fold, C, of which is attached to and in front of the quarter, B, and the internal fold, D, of which is attached to and in rear of the vamp, A, the said several parts and pieces being respectively constructed, and the whole arranged for use, substantially in the manner and for the purpose set forth.' In construing this patent the court below followed the decision of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Connecticut (Judge SHIPMAN) in Evory v. Candee, 2 Fed. Rep. 542, and seemed to assume that no question was presented here touching its validity. After referring to the fact that the patent had been held valid in Evory v. Candee, supra, the court said: 'Its validity is not now assailed, unless a wide construction is given to the claim; and this, as is most usual, is the difficult point.'

The assignments of error are seven in number; but, in the view we take of the case, it is necessary to examine only the first three of them, which are that the court erred (1) in holding that the patent is valid; (2) in holding that, in view of the antecedent state of the art, the patent had been infringed by the defendants; and (3) in construing the patent. These assignments may be properly considered together. In construing the patent, it will be necessary to consider the state of the art when the application for it was made. The object sought to be accomplished was to make improvements upon ordinary shoes, so that they would be water-tight and would exclude dirt. It is shown by the record that long prior to the time when the application for the patent was made there had been a number of efforts made in the direction of accomplishing the same result. As early as 1856, Stephen Norris, of England, received a patent there for 'improvements in the manufacture of boots and shoes and other coverings for the human feet;' and in 1860, Norris and Robert Rogers obtained another patent in England relating to the same subject-matter, and intended to be an improvement upon the invention in the prior...