George J. Meyer Mfg. Co. v. Miller Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 3917.,3917. |
| Citation | 24 F.2d 505 |
| Parties | GEORGE J. MEYER MFG. CO. et al. v. MILLER MFG. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Russell Wiles, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Clarence E. Mehlhope, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
Appellants brought this suit to enjoin infringement of patent No. 839,864, granted January 1, 1907, to C. H. Loew, and covering "Mechanism for Rinsing, Spraying, and Brushing Bottles." The court dismissed the bill for want of equity.
The defenses are invalidity, noninfringement, laches, and estoppel. It will be necessary to consider the last two defenses only.
Loew applied for a patent April 17, 1903. While the application was pending three machines were built and put upon the market. They were all unsatisfactory and soon returned to the factory where they were dismantled. They failed to work "because the rinsing mechanism did not register properly with the pockets which held the bottles." For the purpose of this argument it may be conceded that this failure to secure proper registration was due to workmanship and could have been overcome. No other machines were ever made in accordance with the teaching of this patent by patentee or the subsequent holders of the patent.
In 1915 appellee began making the alleged infringing machine — a bottle-washing machine known as the Miller "Hydro." The Miller "Hydro" proved a practical success and appellee's business grew steadily. The capital stock, which in 1915 was $20,000, was increased to $300,000 in 1917, and to $100,000 in 1919, and to $300,000 in 1920. The volume of business also steadily and rapidly increased. In 1916 the sales aggregated $47,519. In 1922 the volume of business was $552,000. The machines sold by appellee were made in accordance with its patent No. 1,881,913.
No claim was ever made by Loew or his successors in title prior to the commencement of this suit, that the Miller "Hydro" infringed the patent in suit. When the Miller "Hydro" first appeared on the market, the Loew Manufacturing Company charged appellee with infringing another patent, one issued to Adams and Rice. But infringement of this patent was disputed by appellee, and ultimately the Loew Manufacturing Company withdrew its claim. The two companies thereafter were in direct competition. Their machines were displayed at the annual conventions attended by manufacturers and merchants from all parts of the United States. There was a keen, but friendly, rivalry between the two companies. Their representatives and officers inspected each other's exhibits and commented favorably or otherwise on the machines displayed. The Loew Manufacturing Company often sold its machine and took in exchange a Miller "Hydro." It rebuilt and resold the Miller "Hydros." Mr. Loew testified:
Charles H. Loew, the patentee, was the president and general manager of the Loew Manufacturing Company from 1906, when the company was incorporated, down to the date of the trial.
On August 9, 1923, Charles H. Loew executed an assignment of the patent to one John H. Heuser, "including all the accrued rights of actions," and recited in said assignment that he had assigned said patent on May 1, 1915, to the Loew Manufacturing Company, and further that "said assignment has been mislaid or lost and cannot now be found." Thereafter on the 15th of August, 1923, the assignee, John H. Heuser, assigned said patent and all accrued rights of action to appellant George J. Meyer Manufacturing Company. The record also shows an assignment bearing date the _____ day of May, 1922, from the Loew Manufacturing Company to John H. Heuser. There also appears an authorization (August 9, 1923) from the Loew Manufacturing Company to the George J. Meyer Manufacturing Company to join the Loew Manufacturing Company as party plaintiff in this suit. The present suit was begun September 26, 1922.
Appellants' right to the relief sought is clearly no better or greater than the rights of its predecessors in title. Tompkins v. St. Regis Paper Co. (C. C. A.) 236 F. 221.
Assuming for the purpose of this discussion that the George J. Meyer Manufacturing Company is the owner of the patent in suit and entitled to enforce any claim which Loew or the Loew Manufacturing Company possessed, we are at once confronted with the defense of laches.
Appellants' counsel has commendably narrowed the issue by certain concessions. His contention, broadly stated, is that the bill should not have been dismissed, even though all the relief sought was not obtainable; that his clients were entitled at least to injunctive relief and to some damages. In other words, his position is that the laches charged did not bar appellants' recovery, but at most only restricted the relief which the court should grant.
Laches is a term that is often used carelessly and loosely. At times it has been defined in such a way as to eliminate all distinction between it and estoppel. Again there are decisions and text-book holdings that define it as an unreasonable delay or neglect to do a thing, or to seek to enforce a right at a proper time. It is so frequently presented as a defense in equity suits that it would be impossible to attempt to reconcile all of the opinions dealing with it. As stated in 4 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, p. 3422, speaking of certain opinions, "It is not impossible that some of the additional elements may have existed to confirm these decisions."
A concise and generally accepted definition meeting with favor is worded thus: "Laches, in legal significance, is not mere delay, but delay that works a disadvantage to another." Chase v. Chase, 20 R. I. 202, 37 A. 804.
This court has attempted consistently to recognize and maintain the essential differences between estoppel and laches, and in dealing with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC
...F.2d 945 (7th Cir.1950) ; Universal Coin Lock Co. v. Am. Sanitary Lock Co., 104 F.2d 781 (7th Cir.1939) ; George J. Meyer Mfg. Co. v. Miller Mfg. Co., 24 F.2d 505 (7th Cir.1928) ; Wolf, Sayer & Heller v. U.S. Slicing Mach. Co., 261 F. 195 (7th Cir.1919) ; Middleton v. Wiley, 195 F.2d 844 (8......
-
Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC
...645, 650–651 (C.A.3 1922) ; Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt, 27 F.2d 823, 827 (C.A.2 1928) ; George J. Meyer Mfg. Co. v. Miller Mfg. Co., 24 F.2d 505, 507–508 (C.A.7 1928) ; Wolf Mineral Process Corp. v. Minerals Separation N. Am. Corp., 18 F.2d 483, 490 (C.A.4 1927) ; Cummings v......
-
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co.
...no better statement of reasons for limiting a laches defense in patent cases to past acts can be found than in George J. Meyer Mfg. v. Miller Mfg., 24 F.2d 505, 507 (7th Cir.1928): There are peculiar and special reasons why the holder of a patent should not be barred from enforcing his righ......
-
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Eastman Kodak Co.
...Otis Elevator Co., 525 F.2d at 479; Continental Coatings Corp. v. Metco, Inc., 464 F.2d at 1379; George J. Meyer Manufacturing Co. v. Miller Manufacturing Co., 24 F.2d 505, 507 (7th Cir. 1928). In considering whether plaintiff's delay in litigating his claim makes him guilty of laches, cour......
-
Chapter §19.03 Absence of Liability for Infringement
...(3d Cir. 1922); Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. Greenawalt, 27 F.2d 823, 827 (2d Cir. 1928); George J. Meyer Mfg. Co. v. Miller Mfg. Co., 24 F.2d 505, 507–508 (7th Cir. 1928); Wolf Mineral Process Corp. v. Minerals Separation N. Am. Corp., 18 F.2d 483, 490 (4th Cir. 1927); Cummings v. Wilso......