Coburn v. Brainard

• Decision Date: 12 March 1883
• Parties: COBURN and another v. BRAINARD and another. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

16 F. 412

COBURN and another v. BRAINARD and another. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri.

March 12, 1883

The first of said patents contains two claims, which are as follows:

'(1) A case for transporting eggs, in which are more than two removable trays, each containing a series of bottomless cells or compartments, some of these cells having walls irrespective of the walls of the case, and each tray being separated from its adjoining tray by a removable diaphragm or dividing board; (2) the combination of more than two trays, each containing a series of bottomless cells or compartments, some of these cells having walls irrespective of the walls of the case in which the combination may be used, and each tray being separated from its adjoining tray by a removable diaphragm or dividing board.'

The other patent alleged to have been infringed contains the following claims:

'(1) A tray or double series of rectangular bottomless pockets constructed of flexible material, or in separate strips interwoven and permanently interlocked, beyond danger of separation, by means of straight slits or slots cut in opposite edges thereof, substantially as and for the purposes set forth; (2) a tray or double series of rectangular bottomless pockets, constructed of suitable flexible material, in two intersecting series of separate strips, each series of strips being provided with slots or slits cut in opposite edges of each strip, whereby the respective series are interwoven and permanently interlocked beyond danger of separation, substantially as and for the purposes set forth; (3) a tray or double series of rectangular bottomless pockets, constructed of suitable flexible material, in two intersecting series of separate strips, each series of strips being provided with slots or slits cut alternative in opposite edges of each strip whereby the respective series are interwoven and permanently interlocked beyond danger of separation, substantially as and for the purposes set forth.' The complainants, in their bill, allege that the defendants have acknowledged their infringement of said patents by a written agreement.

For remaining facts see Coburn v. Clark, 15 F. 804.

Overall & Judson, for complainants.

Phillips & Stewart, for defendants.

TREAT J.

In case No. 2123 (Coburn v. Clark, 15 F. 804) many suggestions have been made applicable to this case.

In addition thereto the question of arrangement...