New York Grape Sugar Co. v. American Grape Sugar Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1882
• Citation: 10 F. 835
• Parties: NEW YORK GRAPE SUGAR CO. v. AMERICAN GRAPE SUGAR CO. and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

10 F. 835

NEW YORK GRAPE SUGAR CO. v. AMERICAN GRAPE SUGAR CO. and others.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. New York.

March 3, 1882

Dickerson & Dickerson, for complainant. Roscoe Conkling, of counsel.

Bowen Rogers & Locke, for defendants. Geo. Harding, of counsel.

WALLACE D.J.

The complainant moves for a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing four patents owned by complainant relating to improvements in the apparatus for manufacturing starch. Of these patents the first was issued January 14, 1868, to John A. Owens, and was reissued to Thomas A. Jebb and William T. Jebb, May 31, 1881, for a combination of an agitator and vibrating screen or sieve; the second was issued May 26, 1868, to John A. Owens, for an improvement in starch trays, which consists in forming the bottoms of sheet metal; the third was issued September 8 1868, to J. J. Gilbert, as assignee of Colgate Gilbert, for a bolting sieve vibrated, supported, and fed as described, and the constituent parts thereof; and the fourth was issued to Colgate Gilbert, April 15, 1873, for an adjustable support to a starch separator. Except as to the second patent, the defendants have entirely failed to impugn the right of the complainant to an injunction, if this were a final hearing instead of a motion for a preliminary injunction.

As to the second patent, sufficient appears to raise doubts as to the patentable novelty of the improvement described. It would seem that the employment of sheet metal as a lining for the bottom of a starch tray involves no invention. The bottom had been made of wood, and, undoubtedly, when lined with lead or copper or galvanized iron, would be more durable and more easily cleaned. But it is within common knowledge that such linings had been used analogously in many other vessels made to contain liquids because of these advantages. Such a lining had also been employed, as described in the Belgian patent of Heidt, for forming the bottom of a trough or channel used for the deposition of starch, in the place of the tray used by Owen. Inasmuch as the court will not decide doubtful questions as to complainant's right upon a motion for a preliminary injunction, the motion fails as to this patent. The other patents are not seriously assailed, and it is not denied that the defendants have appropriated the improvements covered by them, and are now employing them in their glucose factories.

An attempt has been made to present the defence of abandonment. It is not claimed that there had been any abandonment before the letters patent were obtained, and the facts disclosed signally fail to show any intention on the part of the owners of the patents to abandon or dedicate their rights to the public subsequently. It is not shown that the owners of the patents prior to the Jebbs, who acquired title in the spring of 1881, had any knowledge that the defendants or others were using the patented improvements. It would seem to be fairly inferable, although not distinctly shown that the Gilberts who owned all the patents prior to the purchase by the Jebbs, intended to preclude...