Graham v. Earl
Decision Date | 18 October 1897 |
Docket Number | 315. |
Citation | 92 F. 155 |
Parties | GRAHAM v. EARL. [1] |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Wheaton Kalloch & Kierce, E. S. Pillsbury, and Lewis L. Coburn, for plaintiff in error.
John H Miller, John L. Boone, and Guy C. Earl, for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT, Circuit Judge, and HAWLEY and DE HAVEN, District Judges.
This action was brought to recover damages for the infringement of reissued letters patent numbered 11,324, granted to the plaintiff on the 18th day of April, 1893, and entitled 'Ventilator and Combined Ventilator and Refrigerator Car ' The complaint alleges that the invention patented was 'a ventilator and combined ventilator and refrigerator car,' but makes special reference to such letters 'for further and fuller description of the invention therein patented', and this reference imports into the complaint the description contained in the patent, and is controlling as to the nature of the invention patented.
The action was tried by a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff for damages in the sum of one dollar. The case is brought here by the defendant on a writ of error to reverse the judgment rendered on such verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The specific claims of invention made by the plaintiff in the application upon which such reissued letters patent are based, so far as necessary to be here set out are as follows:
On April 11, 1895, the plaintiff filed with the commissioner of patents a disclaimer in full of the foregoing claims 1 and 2. On April 9, 1895, there was granted to one Thomas B. Kerby patent numbered 537,293, for a ventilator for refrigerator cars. This ventilator was afterwards, and before the commencement of this action, attached to and used upon refrigerator cars employed in transporting fruit from California to the East, and such use of the Kerby ventilator constitutes the alleged infringement of plaintiff's patent. A sufficiently accurate description of the Kerby ventilator, and by means of which it can be easily compared with the ventilator covered by plaintiff's revised letters patent, is contained in one of the briefs filed for the plaintiff in error, and is as follows:
In addition to the foregoing, other facts will be hereinafter stated in the discussion of the several points to which they more particularly relate.
1. It is earnestly insisted by the plaintiff in error that the court admitted irrelevant testimony tending to show that plaintiff's patent covered a combined ventilator and refrigerator car as well as ventilator. We are satisfied from a careful examination of the record that this contention cannot be sustained. It is possible that some of the questions asked in behalf of the plaintiff, and allowed by the court, were not so specific and accurate in their reference to the particular device covered by the plaintiff's patent as to be entirely free from criticism, but it is clear to us that the jury could not possibly have been misled thereby. And in submitting the case to the jury the judge took occasion to particularly instruct them as follows:
It would not seem possible that, after so explicit an instruction, the jury failed to understand that plaintiff's patent did not cover either a refrigerator or ventilator car, or anything other than the ventilating device claimed by the plaintiff as his invention.
2. It is urged by plaintiff in error that the patent issued to the plaintiff in the action is void for want of novelty in the invention claimed, and also that the device covered by the Kerby patent is not an infringement of the plaintiff's patent. This contention, in each of its branches, presents a mixed question of law and of fact. 1 Rob.Pat. § 272; Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U.S. 609, 5 Sup.Ct. 618. The circuit court correctly instructed the jury in relation to the law applicable to each of these questions, and, unless there was an entire want of evidence upon which to base the verdict returned by the jury, such verdict is conclusive here as to every fact embraced within the issues submitted to the jury for decision. This results from the well-settled rule that on a writ of error the appellate court can only consider errors of law, and that the review under such writ does not extend to matters of fact. Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert, 4 How. 289. Without undertaking to give even a synopsis of the evidence bearing upon the question of the novelty of the invention covered by plaintiff's patent, it is sufficient for us to say that, in our judgment, there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury upon this point. Nor are we able to agree with the further contention of plaintiff in error that this court should declare, as a matter of law, that the Kerby device is not an infringement upon the invention covered by the plaintiff's patent. Of course, there may be cases in which there is such a marked dissimilarity in the structure and functions of devices covered by different patents that a court may declare, as a matter of law, that the one does not infringe upon the other, but such is not the case before us. Claims 3 and 4 of plaintiff's patent cover a foldable ventilator in combination with a refrigerator car, while the Kerby device is also a foldable ventilator in combination with such a car. There is a slight difference between the two, in reference to the mode by which the side wings are hinged to the cover of the ventilator. In the plaintiff's invention, such wings are hinged directly to the cover, while in the Kerby device the side wings are hinged to the frame of a screen, such screen being placed in front of the ventilator, and hinged to its cover; but, notwithstanding this difference in the mode of holding the side wings of the ventilator in place, we do not think it can be said that the two devices do not perform the same function, and in the same way. It is clear both are foldable devices, and both accomplish the same general purpose of deflecting and directing the air down into a moving car at one end, and permitting it to pass out at the other; and both, when not in use, are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glucose Sugar Refining Co. v. St. Louis Syrup & Preserving Co.
... ... Cleveland Forge & Bolt Co. v. United States Rolling Stock ... Co. (C.C.) 41 F. 476; Armstrong v. Savannah ... Soapworks (C.C.) 53 F. 124; Graham v. Earl, 92 ... F. 155, 34 C.C.A. 267; National Cash Register Co. v ... Leland, 94 F. 502, 37 C.C.A. 372, and cases and ... text-books therein ... ...
-
Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Holley Bros. Co.
...or directors of the defendant corporation, does not necessarily relieve them from liability as infringers in this suit. Graham v. Earl, 92 F. 155, 34 C.C.A. 267; National Cash Register Co. v. Leland, 94 F. 502, C.C.A. 372; Harrington v. Atlantic & Pacific Telegraph Co. (C.C.) 143 F. 329; Sa......
-
King v. Smith
...confined to the consideration of questions of law arising upon the record. Hill v. Woodberry, 1 C.C.A. 206, 49 F. 138; Graham v. Earl, 34 C.C.A. 267, 92 F. 155; Syracuse Tp. v. Rollins, 44 C.C.A. 277, 104 F. This rule, however, when properly understood, does not deny to that court the right......
-
Perkins Glue Co. v. Holland Furniture Co.
...(C. C. A. 6) 13 F.(2d) 454, 457; and that a specific disclaimer as to some claims does not affect the remaining claims, see Graham v. Earl (C. C. A. 9) 92 F. 155, 158; United States Co. v. Hewitt Co. (C. C. A. 7) 236 F. 739, 742; Robinson on Patents, vol. 2, § Subsequent cases came on for h......