Imperial Brass Mfg. Co. v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 08 January 1912
• Docket Number: 29,415.
• Parties: IMPERIAL BRASS MFG. CO. v. NELSON.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

194 F. 165

IMPERIAL BRASS MFG. CO. v. NELSON.

No. 29,415.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

January 8, 1912

George E. Waldo, for complainant.

Arthur F. Durand, for defendant.

SANBORN District Judge.

This is a suit in equity for an injunction and an accounting brought by the complainant, the Imperial Brass Manufacturing Company against the defendant, Alexander Nelson, for infringement of United States letters patent No. 906,099, dated December 1908, for a compression coupling. The patent in suit was issued to Walter S. Burgess, and was by him assigned to complainant on December 24, 1908.

The subject-matter of the patent in suit, and which is here in controversy, is a form of coupling or fitting for connecting sections of pipe or tubing end to end; said couplings being known as 'compression couplings.'

The following claims, only, are sued upon:

'3. In combination, a pair of tubular coupling-members threaded one into the other, the inner end of the inner coupling-member being annularly recessed and shouldered to receive the end of the member to be coupled, and a hard-metal sleeve inclosed within the coupling-members and tapered longitudinally to a bendable annular edge, the larger end of this sleeve abutting against the outer coupling-member and the thin tapered edge entering the recessed entrance end of the other member and having contact only with the inner annular corner thereof, for the purpose set forth.

'4. In combination, a pair of tubular couplings and means for adjustably connecting them, one of the couplings being provided with an internal shoulder against which the coupled member abuts and with a flaring entrance end, and a hard-metal sleeve tapered forwardly to a thin bendable edge the larger end of this sleeve having abutment against one of the coupling-members and its tapered end extending into the flared mouth of the other member and having an annular contact near its tapered end with the flared entrance end aforesaid, whereby when the coupling-members are drawn hard together the said thin bendable edge of the sleeve will be swaged inwardly to form an inwardly extending annular head and a similarly shaped groove in the coupled member.'

The accompanying cuts illustrate the complainant's and the defendant's device:

(Image Omitted)

The defenses relied on are that the invention in question was anticipated by the prior art, was 'known or used by others in this country' before the application for the patent in suit, and was 'in public use or on sale for more than two years prior to the application' under the provisions of section 4886, Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3382).

The patent in suit was applied for January 13, 1908, and the evidence does not show any earlier time as the date of invention. It is shown in the proofs that the defendant made compression joints something like the patent device several years before date of application, but the proof of their use and of their exact construction is not entirely satisfactory. It appears, however, that in the spring and summer of 1907 the McCanna Manufacturing Company caused to be made blue prints of various parts of a compression joint identical in appearance with the complainant's device, and on June 20th they quoted prices to the Nelson Company on various coupling parts, in which also 10,000 of the compression cone shown in the cut, or one substantially like it in appearance, were included. Under various dates in September, 1907, the record shows receipts of payments of considerable numbers of these parts, including the cones referred to. Prior knowledge by others than the patentee of a device in appearance similar to the patented coupling is therefore fully shown by the record. In addition to this, an attempt was made to show use of the patented device more than two years prior to the date of application, but on this point the proof is not clear enough to warrant a conclusion of a prior use.

If, therefore, the record shows knowledge without use of a device identical with the patented coupling, it is not necessary to prove actual use. If the device known to others was competent and capable of producing the same results as that of the patent, there is sufficient anticipation. Stitt v. Eastern R. Co. (C.C.) 22 F. 649; Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120, 21 L.Ed. 821; Buser v. Novelty Co., 151 F. 478, 81 C.C.A. 16. The prior knowledge need not be more than two years before the patent date. Brush v. Condit, 132 U.S. 48, 10 Sup.Ct. 1, 33 L.Ed. 251; Mast Foos Co. v. Stover, 177 U.S. 485, 20 Sup.Ct. 708, 44 L.Ed. 856; Wilson v. Townley, 125 F. 491, 60 C.C.A. 327; Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 46, 25 L.Ed. 68; Eastman v. Mayor, 134 F. 844, 69 C.C.A. 628. As to the effect of a sale, or sample, as showing knowledge to negative novelty, see Consolidated Fruit Jar Co. v. Wright, 94 U.S. 92, 24 L.Ed. 68; Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 26 L.Ed. 755; Dalby v. Lynes (C.C.) 64 F. 376.

The only question,...