Matthews & Willard Mfg. Co. v. American Lamp & Brass Co.

• Decision Date: 18 July 1900
• Parties: MATTHEWS & WILLARD MFG. CO. v. AMERICAN LAMP & BRASS CO. et al. (three cases).
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

103 F. 634

MATTHEWS & WILLARD MFG. CO. v. AMERICAN LAMP & BRASS CO. et al. (three cases).

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

July 18, 1900

Charles L. Burdett, for complainant.

John Dane, Jr., for defendants.

GRAY Circuit Judge.

These suits are based on the alleged infringements of United States letters patent for new designs for bases for lamps, Nos 23,672, 23,673, and 23,674, granted October 2, 1894, on applications filed August 24, 1894, to John C. Miller assignor of entire interest to the Matthews & Willard Manufacturing Company, of Waterbury, Conn., the complainant herein. The defendants are the American Lamp & Brass Company W. R. Whitehead, F. B. Clark, Charles Clark, and Peter K Clark, of Trenton, N.J. These suits were brought at the same time, and, by stipulation of counsel, testimony in them all was taken at the same time, as most of that taken in one suit was applicable to the others. They have been argued together, but will now be considered and disposed of separately.

First, as to case marked 'A' in the record; the patent in suit being No. 23,672. The organization of the complainant corporation in Connecticut in 1890, its subsequent existence under charter obtained in 1893, and the assignment of the patent in suit to complainant have been proved by testimony of witnesses. The answer filed in the case sets up the usual defenses, but the greatest stress has been put upon the defense of prior use. The Miller patent, No. 23,672, in suit, is for a design for a lamp base, which is a complete structure, although commonly used in the art as a part only of a lamp of a style which includes a base, a column or standard, and a font holder, as the support for the oil font which carries the burner, chimney, and shade. The specifications and claim are as follows:

'To All Whom It may Concern: Be it known that I, John C. Miller, of Waterbury, in the county of New Haven and state of Connecticut, have invented a new design for bases for lamps; and I do hereby declare the following, when taken in connection with the accompanying drawing and the letters of reference marked thereon, to be a full, clear, and exact description of the same, and which said drawing constitutes part of this specification: The figure is a perspective view of a base for lamps, embodying my design. My invention relates to a design for bases for lamps, and consists in the configuration and ornamentation as hereinafter described and shown in the accompanying illustration. The base consists of four legs, terminating in claw feet, A, from which rise reversely curved scrolls, B, C, D, which are united at their tops by a plain band, E, from which arises a contracted ribbed surface, F, which terminates in a plain band, G. Between each of the legs is a shield-like ornamentation, H, surrounded by scroll and floral ornamentations, which merge into legs on either side, and above each shield is an ornamental scroll, I. I claim the design for a base for lamps, as herein described and shown.'

(Image Omitted)

The defendants allege the prior use of the design in controversy by the Clark Bros. Lamp, Brass & Copper Company, the predecessors of the defendant company, as early as April or May, 1892. This is the principal issue in the suit in relation to patent No. 23,672. The testimony relating to it adduced on either side is absolutely contradictory of and opposed to that adduced on the other, and entirely irreconcilable. Complainants, in addition to their prima facie proofs, adduce the testimony of John C. Miller, the patentee of patent No. 23,672, and designer and superintendent of the complainant company in the early part of the year 1893. Miller had then had about 17 years' experience as a designer in this line. He testifies that: He first 'made a drawing of the design on paper'; then gave Edward Schmitz, modeler for the company, 'instructions as to the execution of the design.' The modeler 'carved the design in plaster,' and the original model is in evidence as Complainant's Exhibit Plaster Model No. 1. This model 'was sent to the foundry, and a metal casting made of it'; this casting being filed and fitted to have both sides correspond in outline correctly for to take duplicate casts of. Four castings in duplicate were then made and sent to the pattern department, where 'they were brazed together, making a complete base. They were then sent to the model maker (Henry Stevens, in Hoboken, N.J.), to have mold made of same. When the mold was finished, they were then cast in the spelter foundry in spelter.' 'Q. 17. What did Mr. Stevens do about making of a mold of a lamp base of that design? A. He made the plaster sections with caps and gate,-- a complete mold. It was then cast in bronze, and afterwards chased by him, and shipped to the cast in bronze, and afterwards chased by him, and shipped to the Matthews & Willard Manufacturing Company, at Waterbury, finished.' Miller further testifies that the sample lamp base of the patented design in evidence as Complainant's Exhibit Specimen of Lamp Base of Patent No. 23,672 is of complainant's make, and is from the regular stock. Edward Schmitz says: He is a designer and molder for complainant company, of 40 years' experience. Identifies the plaster model No. 1 as of his make. That he made it in the spring of 1893 from a drawing which he saw Miller at work on at his desk, within six feet of where Schmitz was at work; and, further, that when Miller made the drawing he did not have before him any lamp base or any other drawing. Thomas H. Omer, a brass finisher in the employ of the complainant company for 18 years, identifies the plaster model No. 1 as one he saw Schmitz working on in the early part of 1893, and that he saw Miller sketching. He also testifies that lamp bases of this design were made by 'hundreds, thousands, perhaps,' at the Matthews & Willard Manufacturing Company factory; that he knew of it, because 'it was my business to order the castings, see that they were finished in the different departments until the thing was finally constructed and finished, and ready for finish.' John F. Murden, foreman of the lamp and table department for complainant, identifies the plaster model No. 1 as one he saw Schmitz working on in the designing room of the Matthews & Willard Manufacturing Company in the early part of 1893. He testifies that the lamp bases of this design were known at the factory as 'No. 490'; that he shipped lamp bases of this design from the factory first about the middle of April, 1893; that his regular occupation took him to the designing room. Charles H. Skilton, a clerk for about eight years in the employ of complainant, testifies that he recognized Complainant's Exhibit Plaster Model No. 1 as a design for 'a quarter section of a lamp base' which he first saw in the early part of 1893; that he made an estimate of the cost of this, 'No. 490, banquet lamp,' as shown by his estimate sheet in evidence, as 'Complainant's Exhibit Skilton Estimate Sheet, No. 490, Lamp,' Henry Stevens, the mold maker, who in 1893 resided in Hoboken, N.J., testifies that he first saw this design of lamp base of patent No. 23,672 in the early part of 1893, when the pattern was sent to him by Mr. Miller, designer and superintendent of the Matthews & Willard Manufacturing Company; that he made a plaster mold of it, and returned that to the company; to have one cast in metal, which was sent to him afterwards, to be chased, fitted, and returned.

On the other hand, defendants produce a photograph of a lamp, the base of which is so precisely similar to that of the base of the patent in suit that it is impossible to believe that they were made after independent and original designs, or that the fact is otherwise than that the one was copied from or suggested by the other. The impression made upon the ordinary observer is that the two designs are precisely alike,-- the only exception, and that hardly one to be made by an ordinary observer, is the absence of the fluted or ribbed collar, F, which crowns the top of the design. Other differences which could be pointed out by an expert are so minute as to elude ordinary observation. This photograph, defendants allege, as made as early as April or May, 1892,-- a full year before Miller,...