Ripley v. Elson Glass Co.

• Decision Date: 12 March 1892
• Citation: 49 F. 927
• Parties: RIPLEY v. ELSON GLASS CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

49 F. 927

RIPLEY v. ELSON GLASS CO.

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

March 12, 1892

W Bakewell & Sons and T. B. Kerr, for complainant.

F. L Dyer and J. D. Elson, for respondent.

JACKSON Circuit Judge.

This suit is brought for alleged infringement of design patent No 17,243, issued April 5, 1887, to Daniel C. Ripley, the complainant, 'for a new and original design for glass bottles and jars. ' After referring to Figs. 1 and 2 of the accompanying drawings, the specifications state that--

'The characteristic feature of my design consists of the globe-shaped body, b, and figured ring or neck portion, a surmounted on a zone of the spherical body, b. The figured portion consists of a raised pattern, covering the whole surface of the ring, a; but the heads, d, may be omitted, as shown in Figure 2. The body, b, has a foot, c. A suitable stopper, e, is used with some articles, and with others it is not. It therefore is not to be considered necessary to my design, which is applicable to bottles, jars, pitchers, and similar footed articles.'

The first claim based thereon is as follows:

'The design for footed bottles and jars, consisting of the spherical body, b; the figured ring-neck, a, covering a zone of the body, d; the ring having a raised pattern on its entire surface, as shown and described.'

Infringement is charged only as to this first claim of the patent. The defenses set up by respondent in its answer are: First, invalidity of the patent, because anticipated by certain prior designs; and, secondly, noninfringement.

After a careful examination and consideration of the evidence introduced on both sides, which it is not deemed necessary to review or set out in detail, the conclusions reached by the court upon the whole case are the following, viz.:

1. That the defense of invalidity and lack of invention in the patent sued on is not sustained. The sugar-caster shown on plate 9 in defendant's exhibit 'Albert Jacquemort's Publication,' and the glass pitcher, shown on page 291 of defendant's exhibit 'Hamm's Catalogue,' chiefly relied on to establish this defense, while resembling to some extent the jar embodying complainant's design cannot properly be said to anticipate the latter's patent. Defendant's expert witnesses find some general resemblance between said articles and the patent, aside from or without considering the ornamentation of the latter. But it would be giving to complainant's design too narrow a construction to limit and confine it to the exact conformation of jar shown in the drawings accompanying the specifications of the patent, and to ignore the ornamentation of the pressed neck, surmounting the zone of the globe or spherical shaped plain body. The design does not consist in the precise shape of the body of the jar, nor in the body with the neck attached, independent of the ornamentation upon the latter, but is found in the artistic association of all three features, which present agreeable contracts, and render the article of manufacture attractive to the eye. Thus considered, it would violate all sound principle to disregard the pressed neck ornamentation, intended to promote, and, by its contract with the plain body of the article, actually promoting, aesthetic effect, so as thereby to open the way to destroy the design by showing that other features were previously in use. It is well settled that the patent is prima facie evidence of novelty and validity, which presumption is only to be overcome by clear, positive, and unequivocal proof. Miller v. Smith, 5 Fed.Rep. 359; Thayer v. Hart, 20 F. 693; Lehnbeuter v. Holthaus, 105 U.S. 96. Applying this rule to defendant's exhibits in connection with the other testimony in the case, the court is clearly of the opinion that complainant's patent was not anticipated thereby. On the contrary, the prima facie evidence of the novelty of the patent, instead of being overcome, is supported and established beyond any reasonable doubt by the evidence introduced on behalf of complainant. It is distinctly shown that complainant was the first to produce a footed globula, or spherical bodied glass jar, having a neck covered with a raised pattern. Prior to the date of his design, no practicable method of making articles of glassware having a 'blown' body and 'pressed' neck was known. Complainant is shown to have invented the method by which the body of the glass jar or other article of glass could be blown so as to be of a rounded, globular, or spherical shape, and the neck be pressed, thereby exhibiting the ornamentation of raised figures upon the latter, while the two parts-- neck and body-- united in one integral article. While this suit does not involve the method of...