Harrington Manufacturing Co. v. White
| Decision Date | 23 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1443. |
| Citation | 323 F. Supp. 1345,169 USPQ 193 |
| Parties | HARRINGTON MANUFACTURING CO., Inc., Plaintiff, v. Idas B. WHITE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Elliott I. Pollock, Washington, D. C., and Robert D. Canada, Tallahassee, Fla., for plaintiff.
H. B. Jacobson, Jr., Washington, D. C., and Marion B. Knight, Blountstown, Fla., for defendant.
Plaintiff, Harrington Manufacturing Co., Inc., is a North Carolina Corporation and owner of the United States Patent No. 3,327,745, issued on June 27, 1967. The defendant is a resident of Florida. This is an action for damages to compensate for an alleged infringement, an injunction against further infringement and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. The answer of defendant denies infringement and asserts as an additional defense the invalidity of Patent No. 3,327,745. Additionally, by counterclaim the defendant asks that the Court adjudge that the patent of plaintiff is invalid and that the Court declare the right of defendant to continue his operations without interference by or from plaintiff.
On October 5, 1966, Fred W. Meece and Frank B. Dew made application for a patent of a tree cutter device resulting in the issuance of the patent on June 27, 1967. The rights of the inventors were assigned to the plaintiff. A copy of the patent including the specifications, claims and drawings are appended hereto. There are ten (10) claims set forth in the patent and it is specifically alleged by plaintiff that claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 are infringed by defendant. The claims 1 and 2 are "independent" claims, whereas the remaining claims are "dependent" claims.
1In mid-1965, Meece and Dew made a decision to attempt to improve upon the art of felling trees. They contend that they were unaware at this time that many other persons and companies had already developed "tree shears" for cutting down trees, though they were familiar with the many problems of known tree cutting operations. Although Meece and Dew claim that they were unaware of prior art, because of the obvious similarity of the Meece-Dew shear head to shear heads found in prior art, this Court finds that Meece and Dew were familiar with prior art in the field.
2The Meece-Dew invention described in the patent in suit involved a combination of structural components to create a hydraulically operated tree shear for mounting on the front end of a tractor or other vehicle. Meece and Dew do not claim to have conceived the idea of providing a tractor mounted tree shear inasmuch as the patent expressly states in Column 1:
"The basic idea of counting hydraulically driven tree shears on a tractor and using it to cut down trees is now about thirty years old."
The combination arrived at by Meece and Dew includes a "shear head" consisting of a fixed jaw having a shearing blade pivotally mounted adjacent to the jaw for movement toward and away from the fixed jaw under the control of hydraulic cylinders. The "shear head" is mounted on the front end of the tractor. The front end mounting of the shear head is accomplished by the use of a "C-frame" consisting of two parallel supporting arms rigidly interconnected to one another at their front ends by an elongated horizontally disposed beam that extends completely across the front end of the tractor. Each of the parallel supporting arms is pivotally attached to the tractor at its rear end and the "C-frame" is adapted to be moved up and down under the control of a hydraulic cylinder. The shear head is also pivotable being connected to the horizontally disposed beam by pivotable members. This pivotable interconnection between the shear head and the elongated beam is claimed to be an important feature of the novelty of the invention permitting the arrangement to achieve the "basic concept" which is described as a means for varying the angle of the plane of the jaw members with respect to the beam. Great emphasis is placed upon this "basic concept" and it is said to be adjusted through cooperation between the pivotal interconnection and the "flexible interconnection means." In the drawings contained in the patent, the "flexible interconnection means" are shown to be a cable and a chain. Other alternative flexible interconnection means are described in the specifications and the claims. It is noted that in claim 10 of the patent, hereinafter referred to as the "Meece patent", that one of the alternative means "comprises an adjustable hydraulic cylinder."
3The claims in suit constitute two independent claims1 and three dependent claims.2 The independent claims contemplate combinations of structures comprising a particular type of shear head, i. e., having a pair of fixed jaw members, a cutting blade pivotally mounted with respect to the fixed jaw members and a blade for moving the cutting blade relative to the jaw members. In addition, the claimed combinations of structure include a special front mounting assembly as was more fully described in paragraph 2 of the Findings of Fact. The claims in suit in addition to defining in some detail the special shear and special mounting arrangement employed, further define a particular structural arrangement for interconnecting the defined shear head to the defined mounting structure. This system functions as the result of interaction between the pivotal connections and the "flexible interconnection means."
4The combinations recited in claims 1 and 2 are defined in further detail in claims 5, 7 and 10:
(a) Claim 5, which depends from claim 2, states that the means for raising and lowering the beam comprises a hydraulic cylinder and piston.
(b) Claim 7, which also depends from claim 2, states that the "flexible interconnection means" includes an upstanding post and that "a flexible element" extends between this upstanding post and the fixed jaw of the shear head.
(c) Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and says that the "flexible interconnection means" comprises "an adjustable hydraulic cylinder."
5It is plaintiff's position that the combination of elements defined in each of claims 1 and 2 and the more detailed combinations of claims 5, 7 and 10 are embodied in the accused White tree shears.
6In the late summer of 1965, Meece and Dew began building a tree shear device in an attempt to find an effective means of cutting down trees. By September, 1965, they had completed and had in use two tree shears. This initial device included a conventional cutter head or shear head in which the cutting blade was hydraulically pivoted with respect to a pair of fixed jaws. Additionally, the shear head was pivotally attached to a cross-beam between a pair of parallel arms in the form of a C-frame and was supported off the ground by a chain.
7Meece explained at trial that when he and Dew adopted the chain as the support linkage for the shear head in their tree shear, they did not want a rigid connection. They wanted a support linkage which would "give". The "flexible interconnection means" of the Meece patent tree shear was designed to perform at least two functions: to permit free pivotal movement of the shear head and to serve to limit the downwardmost position of the arc through which the shear head could move.
8Meece and Dew had by December, 1965, built a third tree shear which closely resembled the initially built device except that the chain supporting linkage was replaced by a combination cable and steel bar with adjustment holes. Plaintiff, having learned of the Meece-Dew shear, entered into a contract in February, 1966, with Meece and Dew whereby plaintiff would manufacture and sell this device and attempt to patent it. By April, 1966, plaintiff commenced the manufacture and sale of the tree shear which was substantially identical to the Meece-Dew machine and included the combination cable and steel bar with adjustment holes as the supporting linkage between the shear head and mounting assembly to provide a floating arrangement for the shear head.
9After manufacture of the shear had been commenced in February, 1966, plaintiff by April and May, 1966, began shipment and delivery of actual equipment. In June, 1966, the shear had reached northwest Florida and was displayed in Panama City, Florida.
10For many years defendant White, a machine shop operator in Blountstown, Florida, had designed and built for the logging industry numerous pieces of equipment including hydraulically operated equipment.
11In May, 1966, defendant met with certain third parties who requested that he build several hydraulically operated tree shears which could be mounted on the front end of tractors. Defendant then started designing and building the requested hydraulically operated tree shear which was field-tested on July 30, 1966. Simultaneously with construction of this tree shear defendant was building another device which was demonstrated in Macon, Georgia, in late August, 1966. These devices were soon followed by a third device in September, 1966, which was sold by defendant to John Davis who accepted on behalf of his company, Georgia Timberlands.
12The defendant's tree shear included a conventional shear head which was pivotally mounted to the tractor C-frame. Although his first unit included three chain links as part of the support linkage, defendant, upon field-testing the machine, found the chain links unsatisfactory and eliminated the flexible component in the support linkage and replaced it with a rigid interconnection established by a double acting hydraulic cylinder as the sole element of the support linkage.
13As constructed the tree shear of the defendant White is approximately one half the weight of the tree shear of the plaintiff.
14Defendant gave four reasons for his adopting a double acting hydraulic cylinder as the sole element of the supporting linkage. First, he wanted a complete power...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Elec. Co. v. United States
...from the patent that the inventor has attached some different and/or specific meaning to them. Harrington Mfg. Co. v. White, 323 F.Supp. 1345, 1353, 169 USPQ 193, 200 (N.D.Fla.1971), rev'd on other grounds, 475 F.2d 788 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1040, 94 S.Ct. 542, 38 L.Ed.2d 331 C......
-
Harrington Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. White, 71-2032.
...patent as a positive defense. Upon the conclusion of the nonjury trial, the District Judge entered a memorandum order and opinion 323 F. Supp. 1345, upholding the validity of the Meece-Dew patent, but finding no infringement. Both parties Our review of the case convinces us that the Court b......
-
Amerace Corp. v. Ferro Corp.
...of at least one decision requiring that words used in a patent be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, Harrington Mfg. Co. v. White, 323 F.Supp. 1345, 1353 (N.D.Fl. 1971), rev'd. 475 F.2d 788 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1040, 94 S.Ct. 542, 38 L.Ed.2d 331 (1973),4 the Court is......
-
Azoplate Corporation v. Silverlith, Inc.
...with "including" and does not preclude the presence of other elements as a part of this structure. Harrington Manufacturing Co. v. White, 323 F.Supp. 1345, 1353 (N.D. Fla.1971). The presence of the substrate, therefore, does not remove this plate from the coverage of the Silverlith continue......