Field Body Corporation v. Highland Body Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 4542.,4542. |
| Citation | 13 F.2d 626 |
| Parties | FIELD BODY CORPORATION v. HIGHLAND BODY MFG. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Fred L. Chappell, of Kalamazoo, Mich. (Chappell & Earl, of Kalamazoo, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Marsten Allen, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Allen & Allen, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before DENISON, DONAHUE, and MOORMAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant in contempt of court for violating an injunction against infringement of patent No. 1,451,626, issued to James Morrison. No appeal was taken from the decree sustaining the patent and enjoining the manufacture or sale of the original infringing device, but a modified structure was produced under an allowed patent application. It is that device that is the occasion of this proceeding.
The question is one of fact. Appellant's first structure was a window, consisting of three glazed sections, hinged together and hung from an overhead support in the cab of a truck, filling the space, when extended, from the side panel of the cab to the wind-shield. In opening it, all sections could be moved back in a substantially straight line, until the rear section was behind the side panel, and by pulling the joint between the front and middle sections inwardly they could also be brought behind the panel. The modified device has an added member, a piece of metal plate hinged to the side panel of the cab and to the rear edge of the rear section, necessitating, in opening the window, the moving of the rear edge of the rear section through an are enforced by the metal plate.
The relation of the Morrison patent to other structures and the validity of certain of its claims are argued by counsel for appellant as though the adjudication of validity and infringement were under review. We are not concerned with the prior art, nor with an original interpretation of the claims of the patent. It suffices here that in an action between the parties the patent was held infringed by appellant's original structure. The question, then, is whether the modified structure is the equivalent of the original in its relation to the patent in suit. Appellant contends that it is materially different, in that the metal plate is a part of the window and can be used as a fourth section thereof, though in fact it has not been so utilized; and, further, that the basis of the Morrison patent is the sliding of the window as a unit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartford-Empire Co. v. OBEARNESTER GLASS CO.
...50; Denaro v. McLaren Consol. Cone Corp., 1 Cir., 23 F.2d 384; Monroe Body Co. v. Herzog, 6 Cir., 13 F.2d 705; Field Body Corp. v. Highland Body Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 13 F.2d 626; Armstrong v. De Forest Radio T. & T. Co., 2 Cir., 10 F.2d 727, certiorari denied 270 U.S. 663, 46 S.Ct. 471, 70 L.E......
-
Schlegel Mfg. Co. v. USM Corp.
...rule in proceedings for contempt for violation of an injunction against infringement of a patent. In Field Body Corp. v. Highland Body Mfg. Co., 13 F.2d 626, 627 (6th Cir. 1926), we The relation of the Morrison patent to other structures and the validity of certain of its claims are argued ......
-
EIM COMPANY v. Philadelphia Gear Works
...F.2d 104; Wadsworth Electric Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 71 F.2d 850, 851; Field Body Corporation v. Highland Body Mfg. Co., 6 Cir., 13 F.2d 626, 627; Desagnat v. Dratler, 2 Cir., 142 F.2d 845, 846; Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. v. Leman, 1 Cir., 50 F.2d 699, ...
-
Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Wollard
...is not in issue, having been adjudicated in the Prior Action. Patton v. Stone, 178 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1949); Field Body Corp. v. Highland Body Mfg. Co., 13 F.2d 626 (6th Cir. 1926); Wadsworth Electric Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 71 F.2d 850 (6th Cir. 1934); John W. Gottsch......