Redman v. Stedman Manufacturing Co.

• Decision Date: 23 September 1957
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 846-G.
• Citation: 154 F. Supp. 378
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: Frank R. REDMAN and Redman Process American Corp., Plaintiffs, v. STEDMAN MANUFACTURING CO., Defendant.

154 F. Supp. 378

Frank R. REDMAN and Redman Process American Corp., Plaintiffs, v. STEDMAN MANUFACTURING CO., Defendant.

Civ. No. 846-G.

United States District Court M. D. North Carolina, Greensboro Division.

September 23, 1957.

Thornton H. Brooks, Greensboro, N. C., Howson & Howson, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Welch Jordan, Greensboro, N. C., Pennie, Edmonds, Morton, Barrows & Taylor, New York City, for defendant.

HAYES, District Judge.

On May 20, 1952, F. R. Redman obtained the Patents in suit, No. 2,597,528 for an apparatus and No. 2,597,530 for a method of treating tubular knitted fabric to prevent the garment made therefrom from shrinkage after washing and laundering. These patents issued on an application filed October 22, 1948. Patent '528 may be called Redman's Normalizer and '530 the Normalizing. These patent rights are now owned by Redman with exclusive licensing rights vested in his co-plaintiff. While Stedman Manufacturing Co. is the defendant named as the user of the accused device, Tubular Textile Manufacturing Co. is the manufacturer and owner and lessor and is in charge of and conducting the defense and hereafter will be referred to as the defendant.

The defenses are (1) invalidity based on prior art and (2) non-infringement. Little need be said on the defense of invalidity. The knitting industry is an old and wide spread business. Practically all of the larger knitting companies are members of Underwear Institute which exists as an agency to promote the welfare of the industry. It is agreed that there existed a serious shrinkage problem in knitted fabrics before 1934. The fabric is knitted in courses and wales on a tubular head and the fabric is knitted into 100 yard lengths. After it is thus knitted, it is processed by washing, bleaching and dyeing and extracting. When the fabric got wet and heavy, the moving of it exerted a "pull" or "drag" which elongated the stitches and narrowed their width, thereby distorting the fabric. After it had been treated and dried to be cut into garments, it was discovered by the entire industry that the garments, afer being worn and laundered, would shrink out of fit by drawing up in length and broadening in width. The problem was universally known and ways and means to solve the problem were universally sought by the manufacturers and the manufacturers of knitting machinery.

Redman had obtained two patents and had an application for another patent pending dealing with the problem, but they are not involved here. He had copyrighted the name "Redmanized". In 1944 the Underwear Institute became interested in the Redman inventions. It appointed a committee of mechanical experts from the larger knitting companies to investigate them and make recommendations. Pursuant thereto negotiations with Redman culminated on May 1, 1945, in a written trust agreement between Redman and Trustees named by the Underwear Institute. The important features of the agreement were: Transfer by Redman to the Trustees of his patents and pending application, also any patents or applications for patents made by him during the life of the contract; he was to be employed by the Trust at $12,000 per annum and use his knowledge in the development, improvement and commercialization of the apparatus and process to overcome shrinkage in knitted fabric; the Trust would grant licenses and collect fees; employ counsel and procure machinery to carry out the objects of the Trust; it was to secure $75,000 in contributions from knitting companies and do all of the needful things to develop and commercialize Redman's inventions. The document enumerates in its 26 pages the obligations and benefits respectively of Redman, the Trustees and the contributors and licensees.

There were 59 contributors among knitting companies whose contributions during the life of the contract amounted to $121,500. It is significant that among the manufacturers who contributed $5,000 or more were Atlas Underwear Co., William Carter Co., Gibbs Underwear Co., P. H. Hanes Knitting Co., Utica Knitting Co. and Wilson Brothers. Even Munsingwear, who had wrestled with the problem since 1934 and had obtained some patents relating thereto, contributed $3,000. The voluminous record is replete with written documents from 1945 to 1950, when the Trust was terminated, which show the struggle to solve the problem and the experiments and progress made by the Trust, including Redman, culminating in the application No. 55,963, on Oct. 22, 1948, on which the patents in suit issued.

Having spent three weeks in the trial and observing the machines demonstrated and that much time studying the record, briefs and requests, the court is thoroughly satisfied that there is novelty in both patents in suit and that the claims in suit are valid. The innumerable publications and patents relied on by the defense do not constitute anticipation nor teach the art involved in the patents in suit. If these documents, one or all of them combined, taught or suggested the Redman invention to those skilled in the art, as is now so earnestly advanced by the defendant, it is surpassingly strange that none discovered it when all were diligently seeking it and why the leaders in the industry resorted to such frantic efforts for the solution of this long standing problem. Rohm & Haas Co. v. Roberts Chemicals, 4 Cir., 245 F.2d 693, 697; Otto v. Koppers Co., 4 Cir., 246 F.2d 789.

The Trust was dissolved 9th of Dec., 1950, due to some of the manufacturers leasing the accused device from the defendant. The Underwear Institute and the Trustees recognized that the accused device competed with the Redman patents and pending application, and that infringement would be involved; that the institute and the Trustees could not protect the Redman rights with the possibility of having to sue its members. It sought and obtained Redman's consent to dissolve the Trust and all patent and all trade mark rights were transferred to Redman. It is clear that the manufacturers were eager to get into operation at the earliest moment a machine and method could be obtained which would produce knitted fabrics that would not shrink out of fit.

In spite of the contention of the defendant to the contrary, the accused device constitutes infringement of the Normalizer of '528 patent and the process infringes the process of '530 patent in suit.

The accused device used by Stedman produced the samples taken by Pressnell, Worthington and Lawson and its operation constituted a normalizer as described and claimed in the '528 patent in suit and the method employed in processing these samples constituted a normalizing operation under the Claims of the '530 patent.

Claim 1 of the '528 which is copied as footnote 1 is typical of the others.¹ The accused device has means (belts) for moving the tubular knitted fabric lengthwise through a treatment zone while affording lengthwise freedom of the fabric. Its frame and pulleys of the propeller are within the treatment zone and operate to internally expand the tubular fabric widthwise to effect lengthwise shortening without tension on it lengthwise and means are employed to permit the fabric to relax and to reposition the stitches from their distorted shape while processed back to their substantial shape after being knitted and before the processing operation.

In like manner Claim 1 of patent '530 is typical. See footnote 2.² In the accused device the belts operate to move the tubular knitted fabric lengthwise through a treatment zone while providing lengthwise freedom of the fabric. As the fabric moves through this treatment zone, the fabric is expanded widthwise by the frame and pulleys of the propeller adjusted sufficiently wider than the width of the fabric as it entered the process to effect lengthwise shortening (condensing) of the fabric. Thereafter, the finishing rolls and roll-up rolls operate to permit the fabric to relax both in width and in length. These steps of moving the fabric in the treatment zone with lengthwise freedom while being internally expanded widthwise to shorten and condense the fabric, then providing means for the fabric to relax freely, constitute, in their combination of methods, the restoration of the stitches both widthwise and lengthwise to their original knitted form and thereby restores the fabric substantially to its normal condition, thereby effectively overcoming the contortion of the stitches and of the fabric caused by processing after leaving the knitting head.

The defendant set up 31 U.S. and foreign patents and printed publications and several prior uses to show anticipation or lack of invention in the subject matter of the two Redman patents in suit. But they do not disclose or embody the Redman inventions. They relate to mill shrinkage and controls to avoid waste in ...