National Folding-Box & Paper Co. v. Robertson

• Decision Date: 09 February 1900
• Docket Number: 1,019.
• Citation: 99 F. 985
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: NATIONAL FOLDING-BOX & PAPER CO. v. ROBERTSON et al.

99 F. 985

NATIONAL FOLDING-BOX & PAPER CO. v. ROBERTSON et al.

No. 1,019.

United States Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.

February 9, 1900

Walter D. Edmonds, for complainant.

Charles W. Comstock and W. E. Simonds, for defendants.

TOWNSEND District Judge.

On motion for a preliminary injunction against infringement of the first claim of patent No. 286,360, granted October 9 1883, to Arthur Wilson, for improvement in folding paper boxes. This claim has been sustained by Judge THOMAS, after exhaustive consideration of the issues of anticipation and noninfringement, in two opinions in the suit of this complainant against Robert Gair (C.C.; 91 F. 905, and 97 F 813.) The new evidence introduced related only to patents set up in the answer, but not discussed, in said Gair Case. The defendants relied chiefly on one only of said patents namely, No. 269,682, to Linnett, which they claim exactly corresponds with the boxes as the tongues and slits for securing the same, and that this construction was suggested by Linnett when he said, 'the parts at the ends being attached together to secure them, as by pasting or otherwise securing the parts,' and they contend that the use of such slits and tongues was well known in the art. As pointed out by Judge THOMAS in his carefully considered opinion, the merit of the invention in suit is that the end piece, with its tongues, when caught into said apertures and loosely held therein, closes and holds together the end of the box by means of its lever function. This construction dispensed with the exterior perforations of the boxes of the prior art, and reinforced the sides of the box against strain.

Counsel for complainant says the Linnett patent was not presented for Judge THOMAS' consideration, because the patent to Arthur, May 15, 1877, No. 190,803, which was discussed and considered, covered everything embraced in the Linnett construction. The construction of Arthur is nearer to the patented construction than that of Linnett. It is apparent that neither Arthur nor Linnett had any idea of the clutch invention which Wilson devised. All the other questions herein were before Judge THOMAS, and were disposed of by him.

The defendants have also filed a plea in abatement alleging that certain partnerships and corporations which were rivals in business, situated in various states, engaged in the manufacture of these boxes, being articles of commerce and in great demand throughout the United States, for the purpose of stifling competition, and controlling and limiting the output of each of said manufacturing concerns, or lessening the amount of production of said goods and articles of commerce, entered into a conspiracy, for the purpose of stipulating and providing for uniform minimum prices of said articles of commerce sold throughout the states, and enhancing the price thereof, and limiting the production of the same, and that, in pursuance of said conspiracy, each of the parties entered into a contract to sell its plant to a new corporation, to be organized under the laws of the state of New Jersey. Said contract was set forth in full. It comprised an agreement between certain firms, persons, and corporations to take stock in said corporation, and provisions for the appraisal of the property of each of the constituent members, and for the allotment to each of them of stock in the new corporation in proportion to such appraisal. The plea in abatement further alleged that said parties further agreed that neither of the persons or companies mentioned in said agreement should engage in the manufacture or sale of said articles of commerce, or directly or indirectly continue in, carry on, or engage in said business of which said articles might form a part, independently of the said National Folding-Box & Paper Company, to be organized as aforesaid, for the period of 49 years, and that during said period the parties should refrain from entering into competition as rivals of said company, and that in pursuance of said conspiracy the parties abandoned the manufacture of such articles, and that said National Folding-Box & Paper Company has carried out all the designs of said parties; and that, in pursuance of said agreement and conspiracy, all the patents have been transferred to said corporation; and that 'it was further agreed between the parties * * * that each of the parties to said agreement could and did manufacture said articles of commerce under patents owned by them prior to the formation of said company,' and that such articles 'were sold by said parties * * * at uniform prices, and upon the same terms, without respect to the cost of production or the merits of the respective articles'; and that the patent in suit was conveyed to the complainant corporation in pursuance of said conspiracy to restrain the trade in the states where said plants were located. The plea further alleges as follows:

'The direct tendency and the direct result of said conspiracy and agreement between said parties, as aforesaid, was and did, as intended by the parties thereto, create a scarcity of said articles of commerce, and enhance the price thereof, in the states where said plants were located, and throughout the several states where said articles were in use by the public to a great extent; and the said conspiracy, and the natural results of the same, as intended and designed by the parties to said agreement, and the acts of the parties thereto under the same, are all and each in violation of law, in restraint of trade and commerce between the several states, and are directly prohibited by the common law and the laws of the United States, and, as said illegal and unlawful combination of the parties to said agreement, the said National Folding-Box & Paper Company, have no right, power, or authority to sue or plead in the courts of the United States, in any civil action wherein it invokes the aid of the courts of the United States, to protect the plaintiff to further engage in or carry on the business for which it was illegally organized, and especially to protect it as demanded in this suit, and said combination is illegal and void, and your respondents, therefore, pray that the proceeding in the cause may be abated and dismissed.'

This plea was argued under an oral stipulation to the effect that for the purpose of the motion for a temporary injunction, the facts alleged in said plea should be taken as true, so far as they referred to the contents and execution of the agreements therein alleged, but that this admission should not be construed to extend to any innuendoes contained...