Mercoid Corporation v. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL R. CO., 1839.
| Decision Date | 27 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 1839.,1839. |
| Citation | 43 F. Supp. 878 |
| Parties | MERCOID CORPORATION v. MINNEAPOLIS-HONEYWELL REGULATOR CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Langdon Moore and L. Kerans Moore, both of Chicago, Ill., for Mercoid Corp.
Bair & Freeman, of Chicago, Ill., for Minneapolis-Honeywell.
On June 29, 1940, the Mercoid Corporation, a corporation of Delaware, having a principal place of business and factory in the city of Chicago, Illinois (hereinafter referred to as "Mercoid"), filed its complaint for a declaratory decree against Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Company, a corporation of Delaware, licensed to do business in the state of Illinois (hereinafter referred to as "Minneapolis-Honeywell"). Subsequently, Mercoid filed its supplemental complaint against Minneapolis-Honeywell. By its complaint and supplemental complaint, Mercoid sought a decree adjudging that its devices, known as fan and limit controls, do not infringe or contribute to the infringement of Minneapolis-Honeywell's Freeman Patent No. 1,813,732, adjudging that said patent is invalid, and adjudging that Minneapolis-Honeywell has granted licenses to others to set up a monopoly beyond the scope of said patent, in restraint of trade and in violation of the anti-trust laws of the United States.
By its answer, Minneapolis-Honeywell alleged that the Mercoid fan and limits control is so constructed and arranged as to carry out the teachings and invention of Freeman Patent No. 1,813,732, that said device infringes said patent, and that said patent is valid, and it admits that it has granted licenses under said patent to certain named licensees, but it denies that it has granted licenses which broaden or tend to broaden the scope of said patent.
On July 1, 1940, Minneapolis-Honeywell filed a complaint against Mercoid, wherein it charged infringement by Mercoid of said Freeman Patent No. 1,813,732. Mercoid answered, and by its answer denied infringement, denied validity of the patent, alleged that Minneapolis-Honeywell has been guilty of laches and is utilizing said patent to establish a monopoly in the sale of a combination furnace control per se not coming within the boundaries of the Freeman patent.
The cases were consolidated and tried together.
Freeman Patent No. 1,813,732 was issued July 7, 1931, on an application filed January 16, 1931. In this patent, it is said:
As applied to a hot air furnace fired by a coal stoker, the system disclosed by the patent includes three thermostats, one in the room or space to be heated operated by changes in the temperature in said room or space and two in the hood of the furnace operated by changes in the temperature of the air in said hood. One of these last mentioned thermostats opens and closes a circuit passing through the motor which drives the coal stoker, and the other thermostat in the hood opens and closes the circuit which passes through the motor which drives a fan in the cold air supply to the furnace.
The patent contains ten claims. Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8 omit reference to the room thermostat. Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 include references to three thermostats. Minneapolis-Honeywell relies upon Claims 1, 4, 6 and 9. They are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mercoid Corporation v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Reg. Co.
...the patent, is referred to by the parties as M-80. The District Court wrote an opinion in these cases (Mercoid Corporation v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 43 F.Supp. 878) in which it set forth the patent claims in issue and discussed the issues including prior art, prior uses and la......
-
Mercoid Corp. v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 8566.
...to the rule of Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S.Ct. 402, 86 L. Ed. 363, hence dismissed both complaints. 43 F.Supp. 878, 46 F.Supp. 675. On appeal, this court affirmed as to validity and infringement, but reversed as to the violation of the anti-trust laws. On certi......
-
Mercoid Corporation v. Regulator Co
...the rule of Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S.Ct. 402, 86 L.Ed. 363. Accordingly, it dismissed both complaints. 43 F.Supp. 878. On appeal the Circuit Court of Appeals held that the patent claims in issue were valid and that Mercoid had infringed them. But it disagree......