Enterprise Mfg. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Sargent
| Decision Date | 23 December 1891 |
| Citation | 48 F. 453 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | ENTERPRISE MANUF'G CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SARGENT et al. |
Charles Howson and Charles E. Mitchell, for plaintiff.
John K Beach and Edmund Wetmore, for defendants.
This is a motion for attachment of the defendants for contempt for the alleged violation of an injunction against the infringement of the 1st, 2d, and 6th claims of letters patent No. 271,398, dated January 30, 1883, to John G. Baker assignor to the plaintiff, for a machine for mincing meat and other plastic substances. The construction of the machines which were the subject of the controversy upon the previous hearings, the principle and characteristics of the patent and the nature of the difference between the patentee's device and its predecessors, were explained in 28 F. 185, and 34 F. 134. The new machine of the defendants, which is the subject of the present motion, is the Baker machine, made in exact accordance with the patent, so far as the 1st, 2d, and 6th claims are concerned, with the following addition: The forward edge of the end of the forcing screw is enlarged into a lip having a sharp edge. Between the outer end of the forcing screw and the rotating knife is a stationary, but detachable, frame, in which are three stationary blades. As the forcing screw revolves and delivers meat, the meat is before it reaches the rotating knife, cut, to a certain extent, between the sharp edge of the lip of the screw and the three stationary blades within the frame. The theory of the plaintiff, when it brought the motion, was that the three-bladed detachable frame was a thing of no practical value or importance, and was not expected, by its makers, to be of assistance in cutting; and, furthermore, that it could be taken out of the machine and laid aside without affecting the usefulness of the structure. The affidavits of the defendants strongly tend to the conclusion that it aids in the cutting of meat. The tests which the defendants made were, if accurate, to the effect that the new machine delivered, with the same number of revolutions and under the same circumstances, from 21 to 38 per cent. more cut meat than the unaltered Baker machine, and, for the purpose of the decision of this motion, I must assume that the addition of the three-bladed frame enabled the machine to cut a substantially greater amount of meat in the same time, and without known...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Radio Corporation v. Cable Radio Tube Corporation
...Green Co. v. Henry P. Adams Co. (C. C. A.) 247 F. 485; Rajah Auto Supply Co. v. Grossman (C. C. A.) 207 F. 84; Enterprise Mfg. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Sargent (C. C.) 48 F. 453; Allis v. Stowell (C. C.) 15 F. 242; Bonsack Mach. Co. v. National Cigarette Co. (C. C.) 64 F. 858; General Mfg. Co......
-
Otis Elevator Co. v. 570 Building Corporation
...v. Henry P. Adams Co. (C.C.A. 2 Cir.) 247 F. 485; Rajah Auto Supply Co. v. Grossman (C.C.A. 2 Cir.) 207 F. 84; Enterprise Mfg. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Sargent (C.C.) 48 F. 453; Allis v. Stowell (C.C.) 15 F. 242; Bonsack Mach. Co. v. National Cigarette Co. (C.C.) 64 F. 858; General Mfg. Corp.......
-
Mueller v. Campbell
...in order to test out the question of validity and infringement of the modified structures." (Citing) Enterprise Manufacturing Co. of Pennsylvania v. Sargent et al., C.C., 48 F. 453, 454; Crown Cork & Seal Co. of Baltimore City v. American Cork Specialty Co., et al., 2 Cir., 211 F. 650 at 65......