Reed v. Hughes Tool Co.

Decision Date05 July 1922
Docket Number3741.
Citation282 F. 807
PartiesREED et al. v. HUGHES TOOL CO. [*]
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas; Joseph C. Hutcheson, Jr., Judge.

Suit by the Hughes Tool Company against Clarence E. Reed and another. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Patents 328-- 930,759, for improvement in rotary drills, held valid and infringed.

The Hughes patent, No. 930,759, for an improvement in rotary drills, utilizing the water used to force the material cut from the well to serve the further purpose of automatically applying lubricating oil to the drill bit, held valid and infringed.

Edward Rector, of Chicago, Ill., Wm. F. Hall, of Washington, D.C.,

Before WALKER, BRYAN, and KING, Circuit Judges.

BRYAN Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree holding valid and infringed certain claims of patent No. 930,759, issued August 10, 1909, to Howard R. Hughes, now owned by appellee, the Hughes Tool Company.

The patent was for an improvement in rotary drills, used principally in drilling oil wells. Such wells are drilled by means of drill pipes and bits. The bits are attached to the lower ends of the pipes. In operation, the bits are made to cut through the earth by rotating the pipes. The bits are greater in diameter than the pipes to which they are attached, and consequently there is left a space between the pipes and the outside wall of the well. In order to remove the cuttings from the bottom of a well to the surface, water is forced down through the pipes and openings in the drill bits, and up between the pipe and the wall of the well.

Improvements in the art of well drilling have resulted in the use of rotary drill bits. It is essential that these bits should be lubricated. One of the important features of the patent in suit is a chamber or reservoir designed for the purpose of being filled with lubricating oil to be supplied to the drill bits; and another feature is to utilize the downward pressure of the water through the drill pipe, so as to force the lubricating oil into and around the drill bits. The patent in suit undertook to accomplish these objects by means of a removable plug at the upper end of the oil chamber, to which is attached a spring, and beneath the latter a piston or plunger. But, in reference to such device specifically described, specifications of the patent contain the following 'While I have herein stated that the lubricant is distributed to the surface on which the rollers bear by means of a spring-pressed plunger, I do not wish it to be understood that my broad idea is limited to such a structure for, if desired, any other suitable propelling medium than a spring could be employed, or the plug 16 and spring 15 could be removed, and thus permit the pressure of the water which is forced through the operating member 3 to act directly on the plunger 14, and force the lubricant through the ducts and grooves.'

The claims of the patent call for:

'17. * * * Means arranged adjacent the head for holding a mass of lubricant, and means adapted to be acted upon by the water that is forced through said operating member for supplying the lubricant to the bearings of the cutting rollers.
'18. * * * Means for holding a lubricating medium, and means for introducing water into the hole being formed to flush out the disintegrated material, and also supply said lubricating medium to the surface of the head on which the cutting rollers bear.
'19. * * * A lubricant holder, ducts leading from said holder to the bearings of said rollers, and a hollow operating member * * * for introducing water into the hole being formed so as to flush out said hole, and also exert pressure on the lubricant in said holder.
'20. * * * A lubricant holder arranged * * * so that the force of the water * * * will be exerted on the lubricant, and ducts leading from said lubricant holder conducting the lubricant to the surface of the head with which the cutting rollers contact.
'21. * * * A hollow lubricant holder * * * and means for conducting the lubricant in said holder to the surfaces of the head on which the cutting rollers bear, the pressure of the water that is forced through said hollow operating member being exerted on the lubricant, and thus applying it automatically to said bearing surfaces.
'22. * * * A hollow member * * * and ducts leading from said hollow member to the bearings of said rollers, the pressure of the water that is forced through the tubular shaped operating member causing the lubricant to be forced through said ducts.
'23. * * * A hollow member * * * to contain a lubricant, ducts leading from said hollow member to the bearings of said rollers, and a plunger for forcing the lubricant through said ducts, said plunger being subjected to the pressure of the water that passes through the operating member, and thus causing the lubricant to be automatically supplied to the rollers.'

It was admitted by appellee that the plug and spring, described in the drawings accompanying the application for patent, were not practical at great depths; but it was shown that at a depth of 4,000 or 5,000 feet, or more, lubrication was successfully supplied to the drill bits by removing the plug and spring, and relying alone...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Robertson Rock Bit Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 12690.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • September 27, 1949
    ...Tool Co., 10 Cir., 109 F.2d 500 at page 508. 5 This device was the subject of much litigation between Reed and Hughes, Reed v. Hughes Tool Co., 5 Cir., 282 F. 807; Reed Roller Bit Co., 5 Cir., v. Hughes, 12 F.2d 207, in the course of which it was discovered that an oil lubricator was not ne......
  • Reed Roller Bit Co. v. Hughes Tool Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • March 25, 1926
    ...Judge (after stating the facts as above). In the first of these cases, No. 4514, appellee's claim of infringement has already been upheld. 282 F. 807. The only question before us is whether the damages awarded on an accounting are excessive. We have no difficulty in sustaining the finding o......
  • Koewing v. Pictorial Review Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • September 26, 1927
    ...inventive faculty where the means employed in one art are in a striking, unusual, and successful way employed in another (Reed v. Hughes Tool Co. C. C. A. 282 F. 807), this is not such a case; for, in the first place, it is splitting hairs too finely to say that the dressmaking art or pract......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT