Hughes Tool Co. v. AF Spengler Co., 1658.
Decision Date | 29 July 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 1658.,1658. |
Citation | 73 F. Supp. 156 |
Parties | HUGHES TOOL CO. v. A. F. SPENGLER CO. et al. |
Court | U.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.
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:
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-
Hughes Tool Co. v. AF SPENGLER CO., 931.
...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.
...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......