Lauter & Suter Co. v. Hildreth

• Citation: 219 F. 753
• Decision Date: 09 November 1914
• Docket Number: 1257.
• Parties: LAUTER & SUTER CO. v. HILDRETH.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

219 F. 753

LAUTER & SUTER CO. v. HILDRETH.

No. 1257.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

November 9, 1914

George W. Lindsay, of Baltimore, Md., and Hector T. Fenton, of Philadelphia, Pa. (R. B. Tippett & Son, of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellant.

George P. Dike, of Boston, Mass. (MacLeod, Calver, Copeland & Dike of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.

Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and McDOWELL, District Judge.

WOODS Circuit Judge.

The reasoning of the District Judge, by which he reaches the conclusion that the defendant's candy-pulling machine, operating under the Henry patent, is an infringement of the prior right of the complainant Hildreth, as assignee under the first claim of the Dickinson patent, leaves nothing to be added. While strong argument against it has been submitted, we think it remains unbroken.

It is necessary, however, to refer more at length to the finding by the District Court that the use of the Henry machine by the defendant is an infringement of the complainant's right as assignee under the seventh and eighth claims of the Jenner patent. The seventh and eighth claims of the Jenner patent are as follows:

'(7) A candy-pulling machine comprising a framing, a pin carried by the frame, and shafts supported by the framing on opposite sides of the pin and having crank-arms, and pins carried thereby and arranged to revolve around the pin of the frame, and means for driving the shaft substantially as set forth.

'(8) A candy-pulling machine having shafts provided with crank-arms and pins thereon and the framing supporting said shafts and having a pin around which the pins of the crank-arms revolve, substantially as set forth.'

After noticing the admission that these claims may be read literally upon the Henry patent, the District Judge thus clearly shows the infringement:

'It is objected, however, that the actual machine shown and described in the drawings and specifications of the Jenner patent is different both from the Henry machine and from any machine from which the claims could be read. The machine shown in Jenner's drawings has three stationary and two revolving pins. In that machine the two which are movable revolve in the same direction. In a machine so constructed there must be more than one stationary pin if candy is to be pulled. But the specifications clearly say that if the movable pins are made to revolve in opposite directions the results will be at least equally good. When so made to revolve we have the Henry machine. It is a mere matter of detail, then, whether there is or is not more than one stationary pin. The seventh

...