Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Pub. Co.
Decision Date | 21 July 1893 |
Citation | 57 F. 502 |
Parties | MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE CO. v. PRESS PUB. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Frederic H. Betts, for complainant.
M. B Philipp, Leonard E. Curtis, and George H. Lothrop, for defendants.
This is an equity action for infringement based upon two letters patent granted to Ottman Mergenthaler for 'improvements in machines for producing printing bars.' The first of these patents, No. 313,224, is dated March 3, 1885, and the second, No. 317,828, is dated May 12, 1885.
It is insisted by the complainant that the principal invention covered by these patents is fundamental, that it has revolutionized the art of printing and is the first practical advance in the art since the days of Guttenberg. The machine which embodies this invention produces a line of type cast in a solid bar, complete in itself and ready for printing, and as to its printing face, possessing all the characteristics of a line produced by the hand of the compositor in the old laborious way. The advantages of the new method over the old are so obvious and so numerous that it is unnecessary to attempt their enumeration. They are conceded on all sides; by men of science, and men of labor, by editors, by compositors and by the defendants themselves. A minute and accurate description of the ingenious and complicated machine of the patents would extend this opinion far beyond appropriate limits. It suffices to say that the operator, by playing upon finger keys, is able to assemble a line of intaglio type as desired. This line is locked in position so as to close the open face of a mold into which type metal is injected. In this way a type bar is cast, of the proper height and length, containing a complete and properly adjusted line of words. The line is then unlocked and the matrices composing it are returned to their original positions. All of these functions are performed automatically. The inventor says regarding the invention of the first patent, No. 313,224, that it--
The claims involved are the forty-seventh and the sixty-third. They are as follows:
'(47) In a machine for producing stereotype bars the combination, substantially as hereinbefore described, of the changeable or convertible matrix, the mold co-operating therewith, and appliances, substantially such as shown, for melting metal and for forcing the same into the mold.' '(63) In combination with a mold open on two sides, a series of moveable matrices grouped in line against one side of the mold, a pot or reservoir acting against the opposite side of the mold, and a pump to deliver the molten or plastic material into the mold, as described and shown.'
Less than two months after the application for this patent was filed the second patent, No. 317,828, was applied for. The machine of the second patent is an obvious improvement upon that of the first and for this reason it was the machine that found favor with the public. I cannot doubt, however, that the machine of the first patent was operative and able to do the work described by the patentee. The machine of the second patent, though operating upon the same general principle as the first, differs in several important details, the most radical change being the substitution of independent matrices for the connected matrices of the first patent. In the former the matrices were arranged one above the other on the edge of a long bar, in the latter each is independent of every other, and all are stored in appropriate holders from which they are released by the finger keys. If, for instance, the operator desires to form the word 'and,' he touches the keys bearing, respectively, the letters a-n-d, and corresponding matrices are immediately discharged and carried in proper order to a common assembling point. Regarding the machine of this patent the inventor says:
The first claim only is involved. It is as follows:
'(1) In a machine for producing printing bars, the combination of a series of independent matrices each representing a single character or two or more characters to appear together, holders or magazines for said matrices, a series of finger keys representing the respective characters, intermediate mechanism, substantially as described, to assemble the matrices in line, and a casting mechanism, substantially as described, to co-operate with the assembled matrices.'
A broad construction was given this claim when the patent was considered by this court upon a motion for a preliminary injunction. 46 F. 114.
The defenses are the usual ones--lack of novelty and invention and noninfringement.
The two patents will hereafter be considered together as they relate to the same fundamental invention.
The inventor says in the description of No. 313,224:
'I also believe myself to be the first to combine with a changeable or convertible matrix--that is to say, a matrix composed of a series of dies or individual matrices adapted for transposition or rearrangement, a mold and a casting mechanism.'
In No 317,828, he says:...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Remington Cash Register Co. v. National Cash Register Co.
...claimed for it in the art, it is enough. Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1, 535 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. Ed. 863; Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Publishing Co. C. C. 57 F. 502, 505." In the Mergenthaler Case, just cited by the Chief Justice, Judge Coxe, on page 505, said: "The proposition upon wh......
-
Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co.
...U. S. 1, 535, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. Ed. 863; Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U. S. 27, 34, 42 S. Ct. 20, 66 L. Ed. 112; Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Pub. Co., 57 F. 502, 505 (C. C., N. J.); Scott v. Fisher Knitting Machine Co., 145 F. 915, 922 (C. C. A. 2); A. B. Dick Co. v. Barnett, 288 F. 7......
-
General Electric Co. v. George J. Hagan Co.
...claimed for it in the art, it is enough. Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1, 535, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. Ed. 863; Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Publishing Co. (C. C.) 57 F. 502, 505." We conclude, for the reasons given, that the Collins patent is That improvement was made to the Collins patent ......
-
McDonough v. Johnson-Wentworth Co.
...8 S. Ct. 778 (31 L. Ed. 863); Electric Smelting & Aluminum Co. v. Pittsburg Reduction Co. (C. C. A.) 125 F. 926; Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Press Pub. Co. (C. C.) 57 F. 502. In the Hildreth Case the court said (page 34 of 257 U. S. 42 S. Ct. 23): "The machine patented may be imperfect in ......