Reed Mfg. Co. v. Smith & Winchester Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1901
• Docket Number: 114.
• Citation: Reed Mfg. Co. v. Smith & Winchester Co., 107 F. 719 (2nd Cir. 1901)
• Parties: REED MFG. CO. v. SMITH & WINCHESTER CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

107 F. 719

REED MFG. CO. v. SMITH & WINCHESTER CO. et al.

No. 114.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 3, 1901

Willard Eddy, for appellants.

Hugh C Lord, for appellee.

Before LACOMBE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

LACOMBE Circuit Judge.

The suit is upon letters patent No. 608,720, dated August 9 1898, to William C. Shaw for a collar turning and ironing machine. As stated in the specification, it embodies 'mechanism for turning the rolls of turn-down collars and for turning the tips and finishing the edge of stand-up collars; and it consists, substantially, of a vertical semicircular plate, over which the collars are turned, and grooved sadirons, adapted to move in the arcs of circles over said semicircular plate, for ironing the turns of the collars thereon. Heating devices are also provided upon which the sadirons rest when not in use. ' The claim sued on is:

'(1) In a collar turning and ironing machine, the combination of a curved flange-shaped former, over which the collar is folded and curved into proper shape for wear, a grooved iron arranged opposite the former, and means for moving the grooved iron into engagement with the former, and for moving one of said parts upon the other, substantially as set forth.'

The alleged infringing machine is made under patent No. 627,889, granted June 27, 1899, to defendant Asher. The patent sued upon is a very recent one, and there is no such proof of long-continued acquiescence by the public as would raise a prima facie case in the patentee's favor. Under such circumstances, it is the practice in this circuit to refuse preliminary injunction when there has been no adjudication sustaining the patent, if there appears to be any fair question as to invention, anticipation, construction, or infringement. Dickerson v. Machine Co. (C.C.) 35 F. 143.

It will be noted that the claim sued on may be interpreted as containing either three or four elements. Complainant contends that it covers (1) 'a curved covered flange-shaped former'; (2) 'a grooved iron arranged opposite the former'; (3) means for moving the grooved iron into engagement with the former; (4) means for moving one of said parts upon the other. Defendant contends that it covers (1) and (2) as above; (3) means for moving the grooved iron into engagement with the former, and for moving one of said parts upon the other. In the machine shown in the patent there are two pivoted...