Perkins Glue Co. v. Hood

• Decision Date: 10 September 1920
• Citation: 279 F. 454
• Parties: PERKINS GLUE CO. v. HOOD et al. SAME v. WEST MICHIGAN FURNITURE CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

279 F. 454

PERKINS GLUE CO. v. HOOD et al.

SAME v. WEST MICHIGAN FURNITURE CO. et al.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

September 10, 1920

Knappen Uhl & Bryant, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Wm. Houston Kenyon and Gorham Crosby, both of New York City, for plaintiff.

Travis Merrick, Warner & Johnson, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Rector, Hibben, Davis & Macauley, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

SESSIONS District Judge.

These suits have been tried together upon one record, and are for infringement of two process claims (13 and 38) and three product claims (28, 30 and 31) of United States reissue letters patent No. 13,436, issued to plaintiff as assignee of Frank G. Perkins, now deceased. The subject-matter of the patent and claims here in issue is a vegetable glue derived from starch or starchy products having the adhesive strength and qualities of animal glue and suitable for gluing woods, especially veneers, and also the method or process of making such glue. The conclusions reached may be thus summarized:

1. The questions here presented for determination and the evidence relating to the history of the patent; the development, completion, and description of the invention covered thereby; the value, utility, demand for, and commercial success of the patented product; the interpretation of the specification and claims of the patent; prior use; the prior art, and other matters affecting the scope and validity of the patent-- are substantially identical with the issues and evidence in the case of Perkins Glue Co. v. Solva Waterproof Glue Co. (D.C.) 223 F. 792, and (C.C.A. 7) 251 F. 64. Hence neither a lengthy statement of facts nor an extended discussion of the issues is necessary. In the present case, however, each of the defendants is a manufacturer of furniture and uses the glue in question mainly for making veneers. Each purchases the prepared glue base from the National Process Company or the International Process Company of Indianapolis, subjects the glue base so purchased to the treatment of the final process described in the patent, and thus produces the glue of the patent ready for application and use. The glue base manufactured and sold by the National and International Process Companies and used by defendants is not prepared in accordance with the method or first step of the process of the patent but is produced by mixing commercial starches of different grades and kinds, the raw, underdegenerated, and overdegenerated starches being so proportioned that the mixture has the same average degeneration and the same water absorptive properties as the processed glue base of the patent.

2. While the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Solva Case above cited is not controlling, it is strongly persuasive and, when correctly interpreted, should be followed, unless impelling reasons for a different conclusion are made to appear. No such reasons have been advanced or suggested.

3. Such doubt and uncertainty as exist, as well as the present controversy itself, have arisen, for the most part, from the unfortunately ambiguous language of the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Solva Case and the interpretation thereof by the lower court in the execution of its mandate. The District Judge felt compelled to find, contrary to his own judgment, that probably:

'The Appellate Court intended

...