Hughes Tool Co. v. AF Spengler Co., 1658.

Decision Date29 July 1947
Docket NumberNo. 1658.,1658.
Citation73 F. Supp. 156
PartiesHUGHES TOOL CO. v. A. F. SPENGLER CO. et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma

Fisher Ames, of Ames, Ames & Daugherty, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for plaintiff.

Earl Pruet, of Richardson, Shartel, Cochran & Pruet, of Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendant.

VAUGHT, District Judge.

On December 11, 1946, the defendants filed a petition seeking to have the court modify and interpret paragraphs 1 and 2 of the final decree entered herein May 29, 1937, as follows:

"1. The preliminary injunction entered in this cause on October 19, 1934, be and same hereby is made permanent and perpetual against said defendant and each of them.

"2. A. F. Spengler and A. F. Spengler Company, a corporation, and its officers, agents, employees and attorneys and all persons or firms acting under the authority, direction or control of said A. F. Spengler are further permanently restrained and enjoined from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale cone cutters or roller earth boring drills in the following states: California, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas so long as plaintiff, its successors or assigns shall engage in the business of manufacturing or selling cone cutters or roller earth boring drills in any of said states; and said A. F. Spengler is further permanently restrained and enjoined from becoming connected with any corporation, firm or partnership, either through ownership of stock or as a director or officer or employee, which said corporation, firm or partnership is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling or offering for sale cone cutters or roller earth boring drills in any of said states, so long as plaintiff, its successors or assigns shall engage in the business of manufacturing or selling cone cutters or roller earth boring drills in any of said states."

On November 30, 1932, in Cause Number 931-Equity, Hughes Tool Company v. A. F. Spengler Company, D. C., 73 F.Supp. 154, the court issued a final decree enjoining the defendant from infringing certain patents of Hughes Tool Company, paragraph IV reading as follows:

"That the defendant, A. F. Spengler Company, its officers, agents, servants, employees and associates and each and every one of them be and hereby are perpetually enjoined and restrained from making, using or selling in any manner, directly or indirectly, any devices patented in or by claims 3 and 4 of said Godbold and Fletcher Patent No. 1320384; claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the said Scott Patent No. 1480014 and claims 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the said Scott and Wellensiek Patent No. 1647753, or any devices capable of being used in infringement thereof, or capable of being combined with any other device to be used in infringement thereof and from directly or indirectly infringing upon said claims of said Letters Patent, or any of them, in any manner whatsoever, or from aiding, abetting or contributing to any infringement thereof."

In said Cause Number 931-Equity, the final decree was based upon a contract between the parties in which they composed their differences and settled the litigation. In that contract it was agreed that the injunction should issue and become the final order in the case. Among other things in the contract, it was agreed that the defendant Spengler Company had infringed the patents of the plaintiff; that the defendant had certain materials on hand used in the manufacture of certain articles, and that the defendant was in the process of completing a contract with the Champlin Refining Company of considerable proportions. The plaintiff agreed to permit the defendant to complete that contract and agreed to pay the defendant $10,000 for the materials it had on hand, its good will and other considerations. The plaintiff agreed to abandon and yield its claim for damages for the infringement of the patents to the date of the agreement, and the defendant agreed to sell and transfer its good will in the business in connection with the articles so manufactured and to refrain from directly or indirectly making or selling "roller earth boring drills" in the states of California, New Mexico,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hughes Tool Co. v. AF SPENGLER CO., 931.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Oklahoma
    • July 29, 1947
    ...dated November 30, 1932 (sought to be modified), was supplemented by relief granted this plaintiff in Hughes Tool Company v. A. F. Spengler Company et al., D. C., 73 F.Supp. 156. The defendant contends that it is entitled to the relief sought for the reason that the circumstances have so ch......
  • Spengler v. Hughes Tool Co., 3639.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 7, 1948
    ...defendants filed in the case a petition for modification of the decree. On August 9, 1947, judgment was entered dismissing the petition. 73 F.Supp. 156. On August 21, a motion for new trial on the petition was filed; and on September 26, a supplemental motion for new trial was filed. On Oct......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT