Perkins Glue Co. v. Holland Furniture Co.
| Decision Date | 08 July 1921 |
| Citation | 279 F. 457 |
| Parties | PERKINS GLUE CO. v. HOLLAND FURNITURE CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan |
Knappen Uhl & Bryant, of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Gorham Crosby, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Travis Merrick, Warner & Johnson, of Grand Rapids, Mich. (Rector Hibben, Davis & Macauley and Russell Wiles, all of Chicago Ill., of counsel), for defendants.
The evidence in this case is substantially the same as that in the cases of Perkins Glue Co. v. Hood and Wright and Same v. West Michigan Furniture Co., 279 F. 454, heretofore heard and decided by this court. Indeed, for the most part, the record in the former cases has been 'dumped' bodily into this one. Therefore the decision and decrees in the earlier cases are controlling here. The only substantial difference between the former cases and the present one is found in the method of producing a part of the base used by the defendant Holland Furniture Company in the production of its glue. In the Hood and Wright and West Michigan Furniture Company Cases, the glue base used by the defendants was produced by the manufacturer by mixing commercial starches of different grades and kinds and so procuring a starch base of the required degree of degeneration.
In the present case, a part of the glue base used by defendants has been produced in the same way and by the same manufacturer; but another part has been produced by another manufacturer, by selecting a single grade and quality of commercial cassava starch and merely sifting out the impurities therein contained. Manifestly the resultant glue base is the same, whether consisting of a mixture of starches of different degrees of degeneration or of a single starch of the same degree of degeneration as the mixture. Defendants' final product is obtained by subjecting the glue base to the treatment described in the patent as the second or final step of the patented process, and is identical with the glue of the patent, and while, probably, there is not such a complete independence of product and process in the product claims as is contended for by plaintiff, defendant Holland Furniture Company does so combine product and process in the preparation of its glue as to infringe the product claims of the patent.
In compliance with the promise made in its answer to one of the interrogatories propounded, defendant Holland Furniture...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Holland Furniture Co v. Perkins Glue Co
-
Perkins Glue Co. v. Standard Furniture Co.
... ... extent described in the patent. Thereafter Judge Sessions, in ... Perkins Glue Co. v. Hood et al. (D.C.) 279 F. 454, ... held claims 13 and 38, as limited by the disclaimer, to be ... valid and infringed. This was followed by Perkins Glue ... Co. v. Holland Furniture Co. (D.C.) 279 F. 457, decided ... July 8, 1921, to the same effect. In view of the language of ... both the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Solva ... Case and its mandate, this court feels constrained to adopt a ... view similar to that of Judge Sessions and hold that ... ...
-
Perkins Glue Co. v. Standard Furniture Co., 107.
...279 F. 458. The patent has also been considered in one of the Michigan districts. Perkins, etc., Co. v. Hood, 279 F. 454; Same v. Holland, etc., Co., 279 F. 457. opinion was filed below the patent has been carefully gone over in Perkins, etc., Co. v. Gould, etc., Co., 280 F. 728, by Geiger,......