Reed v. Hughes Tool Co.
Decision Date | 05 July 1922 |
Docket Number | 3741. |
Citation | 282 F. 807 |
Parties | REED et al. v. HUGHES TOOL CO. [*] |
Court | U.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.
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:
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-
Robertson Rock Bit Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 12690.
...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.
...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.
...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......