Mercoid Corporation v. Milwaukee Gas Specialty Co.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1940
• Docket Number: No. 5293.,5293.
• Citation: 33 F. Supp. 681,46 USPQ 23
• Parties: MERCOID CORPORATION v. MILWAUKEE GAS SPECIALTY CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

33 F. Supp. 681

46 USPQ 23

MERCOID CORPORATION v. MILWAUKEE GAS SPECIALTY CO.

No. 5293.

District Court, E. D. Wisconsin.

June 13, 1940.

Eugene C. Wann, of Milwaukee, Wis. (Langdon Moore, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for complainant.

Poss, Toellee & Schuler, of Milwaukee, Wis. (Brown, Jackson, Boettcher & Dienner, of Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.

DUFFY, District Judge.

Defendant was the owner of the original Leins Patent No. 1,958,482, issued May 15, 1934, covering a magnetic switch. The plaintiff is the manufacturer of a thermostatically actuated, magnetically operated electric switch, sold under the trade-mark "Sensatherm." On March 16, 1938, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff that the Mercoid catalogue sheets of August, 1935, show a Mercoid "Sensatherm" which employs Mercoid Switch No. 9-81, and was an infringement of Leins Patent No. 1,958,482, and that unless the manufacture of same was discontinued, suit would be commenced. On June 11, 1938, defendant notified plaintiff that unless plaintiff accepted a license under said patent, suit would be brought within ten days.

On June 13, 1938, plaintiff filed in this court its petition for a declaratory judgment alleging that the defendant had wrongfully charged the plaintiff with infringement of Patent No. 1,958,482, and asking for a decree adjudging that said patent is invalid and that the claims of said patent are not infringed by plaintiff's product. "Sensatherm." Defendant answered on August 5, 1938, which answer included a counterclaim alleging that plaintiff's device was an infringement under claims 10, 12, 13, 14, and 21 of said Leins Patent No. 1,958,482. Plaintiff replied to respondent's counterclaim on August 13, 1938. Thereafter, on March 28, 1939, the Leins Patent was reissued as Reissue Patent No. 21,038. This was granted on an application filed January 10, 1939. The plaintiff then filed a supplemental complaint, covering the reissue patent. The defendant filed an answer and a counterclaim in which the claim is made that plaintiff is infringing claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24 of Letters Patent Reissue No. 21,038. The plaintiff replied to this counterclaim. Claims 10, 12, 13, 14, and 21 of the original patent appear verbatim under the same numbers in the reissue patent. Claims 11, 17, 18, 20, and 24 have been rewritten. The specifications and the drawings of the original patent appear verbatim in the reissue patent.

In the year 1921, the predecessor of plaintiff began the use of "Mercoid" as a trademark for thermostatic circuit controlling devices. On January 1, 1932, plaintiff published a bulletin, "Announcing Mercoid Sensatherm." (Petitioner's Exhibit C.) Up to July 21, 1938, over 140,000 "Sensatherms" had been manufactured and sold, of which 1,200 were sold before July 28, 1932, the date of the application for Leins Patent No. 1,958,482. Plaintiff claims that in February, March, and May, 1934, defendant was on the mailing list and received Mercoid installation instructions, which illustrated and explained "Sensatherm." It is admitted that the defendant has never manufactured a switch in accordance with the Leins Patent.

The matter now before the court is based on three motions which have been made by the plaintiff. The first motion is, under Rule 12(b) (6), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, that the defendant's counterclaim charging infringement of defendant's Reissue Patent No. 21,038, be dismissed on the ground that it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiff also moves, under Rule 12(c), for judgment on the pleadings. The third motion is under Rule 56(a) for a summary judgment.

The question of the validity of claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 24 of the reissue patent over the prior art is not before the court at this time.

The plaintiff contends that "Sensatherm" was constructed under McCabe Patent No. 1,975,856 and that Hunciker Patent No. 2,085,316 covers Mercoid Switch No. 9-81. Both of these patents were co-pending with the application for the original Leins Patent.

The plaintiff in its application for bills of particulars and by interrogatories made persistent efforts to require the defendant to point out in Mercoid Switch No. 9-81 wherein the contacts were carried by the leads and spaced apart from each other. It was after such efforts on plaintiff's part that the application was made for the reissue patent. When the defendant filed its counterclaim to the original complaint, it did not construe claims 11, 17, 18, 20, and 24 as readable upon Mercoid "Sensatherm" employing Switch No. 9-81.

An examination of the specifications and drawings, as well as the claims in the Leins Patent, clearly indicates that a metal to metal contact switch was in contemplation. When such metal contacts came together, the electric circuit would be closed.

In mercury tube switches the electrodes are not provided with contacts as such electrodes never engage each other and are fixedly spaced apart. The electric circuit is closed between the electrodes by the mercury fluid conductor flowing about the ends of the electrodes. When the switch tube is tilted, this causes the mercury to flow away from one electrode and the circuit is broken.

Commencing on line 24 of page 1 of the Leins original patent and also the reissue patent, the following appears: "The switch contacts are disposed within the tube, and are normally resiliently spaced apart, one of the contacts being supported on the free end of a leaf spring."

It seems clear that Leins intended the words "supported on" in the sense that one of the contacts is sustained on or carried by the free end of the leaf spring. This is borne out by the drawings.

In describing the switch, commencing on line 30 of page 2, the patent states: "The lead 11 is provided with a down-turned portion upon which a contact 13 is mounted * * *"

Again Leins uses the term "mounted" in the sense that it is supported by or carried by lead 11. Throughout the specifications, time after time, Leins describes the contacts as though they were metal plates, as would seem to be indicated by the drawings.

The accused device has a mercury tube switch and does not include a fixed contact on one of the leads and a movable contact spaced from the fixed contact and carried by the other of the said leads, as is disclosed in both the original Leins and in the reissue patents.

It is without dispute that the Mercoid "Sensatherm" employs a magnetically operated switch in which one lead is immersed in a pool of mercury when in operative position; that the pool of mercury is a fluid electrical connector to be engaged by and to flow about the other lead when it enters the pool of mercury to close the circuit through the switch, and to flow about and be disengaged by said other lead when it leaves the pool of mercury to open the circuit through the switch.

The medium through which electrical connection is made from one electrode to the other, is the pool of mercury. This mercury is not supported on either electrode, nor is it mounted on or carried by either of said electrodes.

The defendant contends that the patent should be construed by reference only to the claims. The correct rule was stated by our Supreme Court in Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403, at page 432, 22 S.Ct. 698, at page...