Jeoffroy Mfg. v. Graham, 16966.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1958
• Docket Number: No. 16966.,16966.
• Citation: 256 F.2d 360
• Parties: JEOFFROY MFG., Inc., Appellant, v. William T. GRAHAM, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

256 F.2d 360 (1958)

JEOFFROY MFG., Inc., Appellant, v. William T. GRAHAM, Appellee.

No. 16966.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 5, 1958.

S. Tom Morris, Amarillo, Tex., Gibson, Ochsner, Harlan, Kinney & Morris, Amarillo, Tex., for appellant.

Claude A. Fishburn, Orville O. Gold, Kansas City, Mo., Clayton Heare, Amarillo, Tex., for appellee.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and TUTTLE and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

TUTTLE, Circuit Judge.

This appeal deals with the Graham patent No. 2,627,798, which is also the subject of an opinion entered today under the name of William T. Graham and Graham-Hoeme Plow Co. v. Cockshutt Farm Equipment Co., Inc., 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 358. It is between the two opponents who have already appeared in this Court in several different cases raising questions as to the validity of this patent and its infringement vel non by Jeoffroy.

As we have said in the other case just decided, the able trial judge has become an expert in the art of spring plow clamps of the Graham type. This naturally gives even more weight than is usually to be accorded to findings of infringement by the trial judge, for he has perforce had these very devices before him for days at a time, with the testimony of experts and argument of learned and able counsel, also by now completely steeped in the art, to assist him.

Following our decision in Jeoffroy Mfg. Co. v. Graham, 5 Cir., 219 F.2d 511, the District Court enjoined appellant from infringing 798 patent. Subsequently appellee brought contempt proceedings against Jeoffroy for violation of the injunction. The trial court heard evidence and saw a field demonstration and held broadly that several clamps manufactured and sold by Jeoffroy infringe the Graham patent.

The real crux of the case arises from an attempt by Jeoffroy to modify its clamps which had previously been adjudicated to be infringement, by giving them characteristics which Graham testified were identified with the prior art and the departure from which afforded Graham protection in his patent.

Specifically, Graham claimed in support of his 798 patent that when the shank was forced upward against the force of the spring his 798 patent was the first arrangement of parts that permitted lateral, vertical and longitudinal flexibility of the shank without undue wear on the parts. This he accomplished by leaving some space at the first point and by having the bolt at the front end in a hole somewhat larger than the size of the bolt itself. This afforded a firm connection without rigidity and permitted longitudinal motion and a flexing of the shank. Graham pointed out that the prior art taught only rigid fixation of the shank at the pivot point and at the forward end.

What Jeoffroy did, then, was to suspend the shank at the pivot point in a stirrup, with sufficient room for vertical movement, but he then, according to his testimony, undertook to eliminate this movement by the insertion of a set screw, which if tight, would, in fact, prevent the flexibility which Graham insisted was the...