D'Arcy v. Jackson Cushion Spring Co.

• Citation: 212 F. 889
• Decision Date: 06 January 1914
• Docket Number: 2373.
• Parties: D'ARCY v. JACKSON CUSHION SPRING CO.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

212 F. 889

D'ARCY v. JACKSON CUSHION SPRING CO.

No. 2373.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

January 6, 1914

Chappell & Earl, of Kalamazoo, Mich., for appellant.

L. V Moulton, of Grand Rapids, Mich., for appellee.

Before WARRINGTON and DENISON, Circuit Judges, and SANFORD, District judge.

SANFORD District Judge.

This suit was brought by the appellant, Frank P. D'Arcy against the appellee, the Jackson Cushion Spring Co., for the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 785,410, for improvements in springs, issued to D'Arcy, March 21 1905, and relating to a wire fastening device for securing spring structures in upholstery construction. The defenses relied on were the invalidity of D'Arcy's patent for want of invention, and non-infringement. After a hearing on the pleadings and proof, an interlocutory decree was entered, adjudging that claim 2 of D'Arcy's patent was valid and was infringed by the defendant's fastening device known in the record as Style 3, but was not infringed by its device known as Style 1, ordering a reference to ascertain profits and damages; and enjoining further infringement. From this interlocutory decree the defendant was granted a broad appeal. On hearing the appeal, this court being of the opinion, after an extended consideration of the merits, that claim 2 of D'Arcy's patent was restricted to the form shown and described in his specifications and drawings, and that, although valid when thus restricted, it was not infringed by defendant's Style 3, the only device involved under the appeal, reversed so much of the interlocutory decree as awarded an injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of the court. Jackson Co. v. D'Arcy (6th Circ.) 181 F. 340, 344, 104 C.C.A. 170; and order modifying mandate.

After this mandate had been filed in the court below the defendant moved for a final decree. The complainant resisted this motion and moved for an order to reopen the case and for leave to take further testimony. On consideration of these motions the court below entered a final decree, denying the complainant's motion to reopen the case for further proof, adjudging that D'Arcy's patent was valid, but had not been infringed by the defendant, and dismissing the bill, with costs. From this decree D'Arcy has again appealed to this court.

1. A preliminary motion made by the appellee to dismiss the appeal was heard with the argument upon the merits. Several grounds of this motion obviously relate to the merits of the appeal. And as the only ground of the motion which was relied on in the argument, relating to the alleged incompleteness and insufficiency of the printed transcript, was met by the appellant by filing at the hearing, with the leave of the court, a complete supplemental transcript, this being done in accordance with a previous stipulation of counsel and without objection on the part of the appellee, the motion to dismiss must be dismissed, without consideration of its merits otherwise.

2. The chief contention of the appellant on the merits of the appeal, is that the court below was in error in denying his motion to reopen the case for further proof; it being, in effect, conceded both in his oral argument and brief, that if there was no error in this regard, the court below, in view of the restricted scope given to claim 2 of D'Arcy's patent in the opinion of this court on the former appeal, correctly held, on the record as it then stood, that there was no infringement by either of the defendant's devices.

In the former opinion of this court it was held that, in view of the prior state of the art, in which D'Arcy was not a pioneer in inventing a wire fastener to secure the parts of spring structures together, but merely devised a new form of accomplishing this result, and in view of the express language of his claim and the description in his specifications, his invention did not extend broadly, as urged, to the use of a wire fastener made in the form of a 'double loop,' without regard to the functions of its several parts, but was restricted to the form shown and described in his specifications and drawings, with the respective functions of the arms and bases of the double loop, as therein shown, and limited to the structure therein disclosed. Jackson Co. v. D'Arcy (6th Circ.) supra, 181 Fed.at page 343, 104 C.C.A. 170.

The complainant, in support of his motion to reopen the case for further proof in the court below, offered certain affidavits in reference to the manner in which both the complainant and the defendant had applied their wire fasteners to the spring structures and testimony given by an agent of the defendant in subsequent litigation between the parties relating to another patent, which, it was urged, would more fully illustrate the true principle of D'Arcy's device, and show that it was of greater importance and entitled to a broader interpretation than it had been accorded in the opinion of this court, and would, under such broader construction, show that his claim was infringed by both of the defendant's devices, Style 1 and Style 3.

The court below was of opinion that, without the previous sanction of this court, it had no authority to reopen the case for further proof in reference to the question of the infringement by Style 3, which had been passed upon by this court; and that, even if it had authority to reopen the proof as to the question of infringement by Style 1, the complainant's application should be denied for the reason that the proffered testimony, when considered in connection with that already in the case, would not justify a different...