Hutto Engineering Co. v. Grinder Sales Co.
| Decision Date | 20 April 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 1837.,1837. |
| Parties | HUTTO ENGINEERING CO., Inc., v. GRINDER SALES CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Stuart C. Barnes, of Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff.
Edward N. Pagelsen, of Detroit, Mich., for defendants.
Plaintiff moves for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from (1) infringing the Hutto patent in suit, No. 1,610,681; (2) replacing stones and carriers in Hutto tools, where only the stones are worn out; (3) buying carriers and stones manufactured by plaintiff, refilling them, and selling them to owners of plaintiff's tools; (4) advertising the repair of tools of plaintiff's manufacture, without at the same time announcing that the defendants are no longer connected with the plaintiff.
The patent in suit relates to a grinding tool, particularly intended for grinding automobile engine cylinders. It is what the plaintiff calls a solid-back, self-adjusting stone tool. By this they mean that the stones and carriers are radially projected by an adjusting device to meet the walls of the cylinder, and are solidly held in this projected position, and yet at the same time the stones can tilt slightly to adjust themselves to the contour of the wall of the cylinder. Plaintiff distinguishes this solid-back tool from the type of cylinder grinder which it calls a hone, where the stones are spring-pressed against the cylinder walls, and yield inwardly when they meet considerable resistance.
The affidavits accompanying the motion and filed by the plaintiff show that the plaintiff's tool has been adopted as the exclusive production tool for cylinder grinding by many of the large automobile companies. The record also shows that the defendant Grinder Sales Company was for something over two years the exclusive sales agent for the plaintiff's tool. The contract between the parties recites that the patentee, Hutto, is the inventor of the tool which is the subject-matter of the contract, and contains certain provisions for license to manufacture, and the payment of royalty in case the manufacturer could not furnish the defendant Grinder Sales Company with the tool in adequate numbers. The contracts between the parties were finally canceled by mutual consent and suitable releases in July, 1926. Some time after that the defendant Grinder Sales Company began the manufacture and sale of the tools complained of. It also offered for sale carriers and stones which could be fitted into the plaintiff's tools. The Hutto patent in suit issued December 14, 1926.
The plaintiff has not proved that the defendants, since the issue of the patent, have manufactured or offered for sale carriers and stones intended to replace carriers with worn-out stones in the Hutto grinder. I therefore regard the question raised by the plaintiff as not properly before me at this time. That question relates to the right to replace a larger assembly than the worn-out parts in making repairs. I will therefore deny this prayer for preliminary injunction, without prejudice to renewing it, if the plaintiff can subsequently prove that the defendants are engaging in the practices of which it complains.
As to the third prayer for injunction, I find that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendants, since the issue of the patent, have purchased the plaintiff's carriers with worn-out stones, refilled them, and sold them to other owners of the plaintiff's tools for use therein. This being the case, the third prayer for preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice, and plaintiff shall be at liberty to renew its petition for injunction in this behalf, if it can establish that the defendants are indulging in the practice complained of.
The patent is of recent issue, has been unadjudicated, and has not been issued long enough to show any considerable public acquiescence in its validity. Ordinarily, under these circumstances, preliminary injunction will not issue. However, there appears to be a well-defined exception to this rule, where the infringement is clear, and the defenses raised do not seriously inpugn the validity of the patent. In the line of cases supporting this exception are Foster v. Crossin (C. C.) 23 F. 400; Fuller v. Gilmore (C. C.) 121 F. 129; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- THE FREDENSBRO
-
American Cutting Alloys v. Carboloy Co.
...had. It also entered into an agreement with him in 1938 and paid royalties. Ordinarily, under the decisions (Hutto Engineering Co., Inc., v. Grinder Sales Co., D.C., 18 F.2d 985), this would have raised a strong presumption in favor of plaintiff, and we hold that it does, insofar as a narro......