Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. v. Walker Bin Co.
| Decision Date | 08 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 2666. |
| Citation | 230 F. 453 |
| Parties | CINCINNATI BUTCHERS' SUPPLY CO. v. WALKER BIN CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Heidman & Street, of Chicago, Ill., and Ralph E. Clark, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Ernest Howard Hunter, of Philadelphia, Pa., Guy W. Mallon, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and A. E. Paige, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before WARRINGTON, KNAPPEN, and DENISON, Circuit Judges.
Suit on Walker patent, No. 614,279. We are strongly impressed that the claim of the patent is not ambiguous enough to permit it to be read so as not to cover the earlier Carr structure unless we import into the claim a limitation contrary to the rule on that subject. We also appreciate the (at least) considerable force in the argument that defendant's axis of oscillation is far enough back from the front edge of the casing so that defendant must have some of that waste clearance space, the avoidance of which was the patentee's declared object in locating his axis as specified in his claim, and likewise in the further argument that defendant's effective counterbalance is largely had by pulling out the bin before tilting. The reported opinions of other courts in former cases do not treat these points as completely as we presume would have been done if those courts had heard the arguments now here made; but the patentee is entitled almost to invoke the rule of stare decisis rather than merely the rule of comity.
The validity of the patent has been many times held or assumed [1] and two Circuit Courts of Appeals have found infringement in structures which cannot be substantially distinguished from that of defendant in this case. In the Gloekler Case, in the Third Circuit, the bin was practically identical with the one now involved; and the bin of the Liebe Case, in the Fifth Circuit, is not far removed. We could not acquit this defendant of infringement without finding both of these courts to be in error; but while we doubtless have that power, under Mast v. Stover, 177 U.S. 488, 20 Sup.Ct. 708, 44 L.Ed. 856, yet its exercise could be justified only by that degree of certainty which amounts to a demonstration. We think it is our duty here to adopt the principle declared by Judge Lurton, speaking for this court in Penfield v. Potts, 126 F. 475, 478, 61 C.C.A 371, when he said that 'a decent respect for the stability of judicial decisions and the proper regard for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kearney & Trecker Corp. v. Cincinnati Milacron, Inc.
...236 (6 Cir., 1960); Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp., 233 F.2d 828, 837 (6 Cir., 1956); Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. v. Walker Bin Co., 230 F. 453, 454 (6 Cir., 1916). We have not overlooked the fact that one of the two cases consolidated for trial was transferred from the ......
-
General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
...court adversary proceeding. Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27, 32, 42 S.Ct. 20, 66 L.Ed. 112 (1921); Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. v. Walker Bin Co., 230 F. 453, 454 (6th Cir. 1916); Cold Metal Process Co. v. Republic Steel Corp., 233 F.2d 828, 837 (6th Cir. 1956), cert. den., 352 U.S. 89......
-
Cold Metal Process Company v. Republic Steel Corp.
...fact," Justice Lurton speaking for the court in Penfield v. C. & A. Potts & Co., 6 Cir., 126 F. 475, 478; Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. v. Walker Bin Co., 6 Cir., 230 F. 453, 454. The fact that the patents have revolutionized the art to which they relate requires that they be given libera......
-
Williams v. Hughes Tool Co.
...Co. v. City of New York, 2 Cir., 187 F. 831, 835; Penfield v. C. & A. Potts & Co., 6 Cir., 126 F. 475, 478; Cincinnati Butchers' Supply Co. v. Walker Bin Co., 6 Cir., 230 F. 453, 454; Stoody Co. v. Osage Metal Co., 10 Cir., 95 F.2d 592, 593; Cf. Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U.S.......