Maimen v. Union Special Mach Co.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 23. |
| Citation | 165 F. 440 |
| Parties | MAIMEN v. UNION SPECIAL MACH. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
H. T Fenton, for appellant.
Charles L. Sturtevant and Joseph C. Fraley, for appellee.
Before GRAY and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges, and 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 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:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aro Manufacturing Co v. Convertible Top Replacement Co
...by 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, 293 U.S.......
-
Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., CV 92-4196.
...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 infringement as to ......
-
Nuance Commc'ns Inc v. Tellme Networks Inc
...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 Id. After Aro, the actions of repair and maintenance ......
-
Franklin Brass Foundry Co. v. Shapiro & Aronson, Inc.
...in such suits for infringements, if any, occurring subsequent to the filing of the bill. It was so ruled by this court in Maimen v. Union Specialty Co., supra. It likewise so decided in the Second Circuit in Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Condit Elec. Mfg. Co. (C.C.) 159 F. 154, and in Un......