Maimen v. Union Special Mach Co., 23.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
Citation165 F. 440
Decision Date20 November 1908
PartiesMAIMEN v. UNION SPECIAL MACH. CO.
Docket Number23.

165 F. 440

MAIMEN
v.
UNION SPECIAL MACH.
CO.

No. 23.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

November 20, 1908


H. T. Fenton, for appellant.

Charles L. Sturtevant and Joseph C. Fraley, for appellee.

Before GRAY and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges, and CROSS, District Judge.

CROSS, District Judge.

The opinion of the learned judge below, reported in 161 F. 748, so fully and clearly resolves the points in controversy that it seems unnecessary to paraphrase at length the reasoning by which his conclusions were severally attained. After careful consideration of all the points raised on appeal in behalf of the appellant, our conclusion is that the issues were rightly decided in the court below. In this court, as in that, the appellant rested his claim to anticipation mainly upon the Muther patent. That the patent [165 F. 441] in suit, however, shows inventive advance upon that, as well as upon the prior art in general, has been clearly demonstrated.

It must be admitted that the placing of an intermediate eyelet upon the top of the movable arm of the sewing machine was of itself a simple matter. Nevertheless results were thereby obtained which were previously obtained or attempted only by complicated devices. The simplicity of the invention is perhaps its chief merit, and certainly ought not to, and does not, preclude its validity.

As to the point made on behalf of the appellant that the claims in question do not set forth a true combination, but rather a mere aggregation of parts, we think the contrary is manifest. The eyelet, c, which comprises the invention, manifestly co-operates with the other elements of the combination, and without them could not perform its function. It is true that the elements of the combination do not act simultaneously; but that is immaterial, since they are nevertheless so arranged that the action of each is necessary and contributes to the general result. Upon this point the court below well said:

'Nor is the invention here to be characterized as merely putting on another eyelet, but consists in attaching it at such a place that it shall operate to a certain end in a certain way. Not only by producing a crook or bend in the thread between the tension device and the needle arm, does the relative arrangement of the several eyelets pull off just so much more thread, thus supplying a needed slack in case of encountering an extra thickness of material, such as the ridge of a seam, but
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Aro Manufacturing Co v. Convertible Top Replacement Co, No. 75
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1964
    ...by Page 485 so much to the perpetuation of the infringement.' Union Special Mach. Co. v. Maimin, 161 F. 748, 750 (C.C.E.D.Pa.1908), aff'd, 165 F. 440 (C.A.3d Cir. 1908). Accord, Remington Rand Business Serv., Inc., v. Acme Card System Co., 71 F.2d 628, 630 (C.A.4th Cir. 1934), cert. denied,......
  • Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., No. CV 92-4196.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 30, 1995
    ...the hands of the person for whom it is repaired.'" Id. (quoting Union Special Mach. Co. v. Maimin, 161 F. 748, 750 (C.C.E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 165 F. 440 (C.A. 3d Cir. 1908)). GE was not liable for direct infringement on sales occurring prior to September 1992. With no underlying direct infringem......
  • Nuance Commc'ns Inc v. Tellme Networks Inc, Civ. No. 06-105-SLR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • April 20, 2010
    ...... but not where it is done for one who is.” Id. (citing Union Special Mach. Co. v. Maimin, 161 F. 748, 750 (C.C.E.D.Pa.1908), aff'd, 165 F. 440 (3d Cir.1908)). This is so because the repair of an infringing item “perpetuates the infringing use.” Id. After Aro, the actions of repair and ma......
  • Franklin Brass Foundry Co. v. Shapiro & Aronson, Inc., 2715.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 21, 1921
    ...and the infringement prior to notice declared to be 'presumptively innocent.' This case was followed in Maimen v. Union Special Mach. Co., 165 F. 440, 91 C.C.A. 384 (C.C.A. 3). The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Gibson v. American Graphophone Co., 234 F. 633, 148 C.C.A.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Aro Manufacturing Co v. Convertible Top Replacement Co, No. 75
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1964
    ...by Page 485 so much to the perpetuation of the infringement.' Union Special Mach. Co. v. Maimin, 161 F. 748, 750 (C.C.E.D.Pa.1908), aff'd, 165 F. 440 (C.A.3d Cir. 1908). Accord, Remington Rand Business Serv., Inc., v. Acme Card System Co., 71 F.2d 628, 630 (C.A.4th Cir. 1934), cert. denied,......
  • Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., No. CV 92-4196.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • September 30, 1995
    ...the hands of the person for whom it is repaired.'" Id. (quoting Union Special Mach. Co. v. Maimin, 161 F. 748, 750 (C.C.E.D.Pa.), aff'd, 165 F. 440 (C.A. 3d Cir. 1908)). GE was not liable for direct infringement on sales occurring prior to September 1992. With no underlying direct infringem......
  • Nuance Commc'ns Inc v. Tellme Networks Inc, Civ. No. 06-105-SLR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Delaware)
    • April 20, 2010
    ...... but not where it is done for one who is.” Id. (citing Union Special Mach. Co. v. Maimin, 161 F. 748, 750 (C.C.E.D.Pa.1908), aff'd, 165 F. 440 (3d Cir.1908)). This is so because the repair of an infringing item “perpetuates the infringing use.” Id. After Aro, the actions of repair and ma......
  • Franklin Brass Foundry Co. v. Shapiro & Aronson, Inc., 2715.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • December 21, 1921
    ...and the infringement prior to notice declared to be 'presumptively innocent.' This case was followed in Maimen v. Union Special Mach. Co., 165 F. 440, 91 C.C.A. 384 (C.C.A. 3). The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Gibson v. American Graphophone Co., 234 F. 633, 148 C.C.A.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT