Eaid v. Twohy Bros Co.
Decision Date | 07 February 1916 |
Docket Number | 2589. |
Citation | 230 F. 444 |
Parties | EAID et al. v. TWOHY BROS. CO. et al. [1] |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Chas. E. Wolverton, Judge.
Suit in equity by Clayton T. Eaid and Joseph A. McConnell against the Twohy Bros. Company, the Northwestern Equipment Company, and Elbert G. Chandler. Decree for defendants, and complainants appeal. Affirmed.
PATENTS 328-- VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-- CHOCK ATTACHMENT FOR CARS.
The McConnell patent, No. 901,815, for a chock attachment for log cars, is for improvements only, and in view of the prior art is limited to the precise devices shown and described. As so limited, held not infringed by the devices of the Chandler patent, No. 1,066,795.
Stapleton & Sleight and Joseph L. Atkins, all of Portland, Or., for appellants.
William R. Litzenberg, of Portland, Or., for appellees.
Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and RUDKIN, District Judge.
The appellants were complainants in the court below in a suit for the alleged infringement of a patent issued in 1908 to the appellant McConnell-- the alleged infringers operating under and in pursuance of a patent issued about five years thereafter to the appellee Chandler. McConnell declared in his patent, among other things, that his invention afterwards described in the specifications; the patent concluding with 10 claims.
We see no merit whatever in the contention on the part of the appellants that the patent issued to McConnell was in any respect of a pioneer character, for the record discloses that years before patents had been issued to other persons having the same objects in view, as well as some similar features and, indeed, that McConnell was compelled by the Patent Office to amend his claims in several respects in order to avoid anticipation and to secure a patent at all. The earliest patent found in the record was issued August 7 1888, to one Wilbur, who declared therein:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
-
Magnavox Co. v. Hart & Reno
...not infringe." (Italics our own.) Other decisions by this court to the same effect are to be found in the following cases: Eaid v. Twohy Bros. Co., 230 F. 444, 447; Wilson & Willard Mfg. Co. v. Union Tool Co., 249 F. 729, 731, certiorari denied, 248 U. S. 559, 39 S. Ct. 6, 63 L. Ed. 421; Pa......
-
International Harvester Co. v. Killefer Mfg. Co., 6712.
...result by other means.' Electric R. Signal Co. v. Hall Ry. Signal Co., 114 U. S. 87, 5 S. Ct. 1069, 1075, 29 L. Ed. 96." In Eaid v. Twohy Bros. Co., 230 F. 444, 447, this court also said: "Being a mere improvement on the prior art, McConnell is only entitled to the precise devices described......
-
Pacific States Elec. Co. v. Wright
... ... charge of infringement cannot be maintained. Eaid et al ... v. Twohy Bros. et al., 230 F. 444, 447, 144 C.C.A. 586; ... and cases there cited ... ...