Royer v. Coupe

• Decision Date: 01 January 1886
• Citation: 29 F. 358
• Parties: ROYER and others v. COUPE.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

29 F. 358

ROYER and others v. COUPE.

United States Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.

October Term, 1886

The machine described in the patent consists of a vertical shaft surrounded by a vertical circle of pins or rollers constituting a crib. The shaft contains slots, and set-screws projecting into the slots. A disk-shaped weight, grooved on its edges to fit the vertical pins or rollers, and having a hole through its center through which the vertical shaft projects upward, is shown and described as filling the entire cavity at the upper end of the crib. The hide having been unhaired, its end is inserted in the slot in the vertical shaft, and is made fast there by setting the set-screws up against it. The vertical shaft is then made to revolve so as to wind the hide around it, and fill up the crib, and is then made to revolve in the opposite direction, so as to wind the hide up the other way, from the inside, and is again reversed, winding it the other way; and this operation is repeated until the hide, by the repeated foldings under pressure of the crib, and of the weight which is pressed down upon it, has its fibres so loosened as to soften it, and make it fit for belt lacing. Stuffing is applied to the hide during the operation.

The claims of the patent are as follows:

(1) The vertical shaft, B, with a slot B', and set-screws b, b b, said shaft having a forward and back motion, substantially as and for the purpose described.

(2) The pins or rollers, C, C, C, set in the rings, D and D' together with the grooved weight, I, substantially as and for the purposes described.

It appeared in evidence that the only methods for softening raw hides known before the plaintiffs' invention was by beating or boarding them by hand, or, as was practiced in Russia, by hanging them in strips on a bar, attaching weights to the lower ends of the strips, and then spinning or twisting them, first in one direction and then the other; although it appeared in evidence that it was possible to soften them by what was called a 'stuffing-wheel,' or with what was known as 'fulling-stocks,' which were known before the patented invention, but it did not appear that they were used for that purpose. It further appeared that the first fulled raw-hide lacing put upon the market in this country was that which was produced in the patented machine.

There was testimony tending to show that Louis Royer, one of the plaintiffs, several years prior to the patented invention, had constructed a machine for softening raw hides, in which there was a horizontal revolving shaft, surrounded by a circular row of pins, which were held in place by a chain passed around them, but that it was not a practical machine; and that subsequently Herman Royer, the other plaintiff, taking up the ideas of Louis Royer which had been embodied in this first machine, and advising with him, contrived the patented machine. It also appears that, in 1876, Herman Royer, having fallen out with Louis Royer, the other plaintiff, had written a letter in which he stated, among other things, that Louis Royer had 'never invented anything in this raw-hide business.'

On behalf of the plaintiffs there was evidence to the effect that raw hides could be softened in the patented machine at an expense approaching four or five dollars a hide less than by other means known before the patented invention, and one of the plaintiffs testified that he knew that the difference would be more than a dollar a hide. One of the defendants testified that the old fulling-stocks would be preferable to the patented machine for softening raw hides, because the patented machine could not be made to practically soften them at all.

The machine used by the defendants which was alleged to be an infringement consisted of a horizontal shaft, surrounded by a circle of pins or rollers, constituting a crib, and two false heads, one in each end of the crib, having central holes through which a horizontal shaft was run, which heads were pressed up against the hides by screws. The hides were fastened in this machine to the horizontal shaft by screws in slots, and they were wound and unwound upon the shaft, first in one direction and then in the other, as above described. The defendants introduced evidence that they had tried a machine built according to the patent, and that it could not be made to work. It appeared that this was mainly, if not wholly, due to one of the set screws projecting out so that the weight could not descend far enough to compress the hides. Evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs tended to show that although the head of this set-screw was shown projecting out in the drawings of the patent, yet that an ordinary mechanic, building a machine from the patent, would have known how to correct this defect without invention. The defendants also introduced evidence tending to show that vertical machines could not be made to soften hides. The plaintiffs introduced evidence tending to show that such machines had been used for years. The jury found for plaintiffs.

Thomas L. Livermore and Milton A. Wheaton, for plaintiffs.

B. F. Thurston and W. H. Thurston, for defendants.

CARPENTER, J., (charging jury.)

It may be useful for you to understand, in a general way, what is the nature of these rights that are called patent-rights, and of which this claim which is brought here is one . You know to how large an extent the progress of the country has depended upon new and useful inventions in the mechanical and other useful arts, and the attention of the congress was early turned, in pursuance of the constitution, to the consideration of what methods ought to be adopted, in the first place, to protect the rights of inventors, and, in the second place,-- which is equally important,-- to protect the rights of the public. In order to accomplish these two results, the patent laws have been enacted, which provide, in general terms, as follows: He who has invented a new and improved process or machine may, if he sees fit, retain within his own breast the knowledge of the thing; or, if he constructs machinery for the purpose of illustrating his invention, and puts it into use, or, if he carries on the process which he has invented, he may choose to carry it on secretly, and, if he is able to preserve the secret from the depredations of others, he may thus retain a perpetual monopoly,-- a perpetual, exclusive use of the invention,--and may thus, as it were, perpetually levy tribute upon the public for the use of it. The provision of the law, however, is that if he will make public the machine or the process which he has invented,-- if he will put down upon paper a clear, distinct, and intelligible description of it,-- then the government will give him the exclusive right, for a definite number of years, (under the present condition of the law, for 17 years,) to use that improvement; the consideration for that grant being, of course, that he has made it known to the public, so that when the 17 years shall have expired the public will not only have the right, but they will also be able, to exercise this art for their own profit and advantage. So that you see on one side is a special grant made by the government to the inventor, that he shall have the exclusive use of his invention for a certain time; and there is, on the other hand, a consideration given for it by the inventor; that is to say, the disclosure of his invention, so that the public may afterwards have the benefit of it.

Now, this grant which is thus made to an inventor constitutes property to which he is entitled, and, as in the case of all other property, the law forbids any encroachment or infringement upon this right. That is to say, just as the law forbids any man to take and carry off the physical property, as the book, or the knife, or the tool, employed by another in his work, so it prohibits any person from using or practicing the invention in respect of which this patent has been issued; and, in case any such infraction of the law should occur, the patentee has a right to bring his action against the person who has so interfered with his rights, and recover from him such reasonable damages, or such other relief, as the forms of law permit. He is allowed, and for a long number of years in the past he has been allowed, to bring his action either on the law side, as it is phrased, or on the equity side, of the court. That is to say, he may cause his dispute to be brought for determination before a jury, as in this case, or before the court, as in an equity case; and he is allowed free liberty of choice between these different remedies, choosing, of course, that one which, according to his judgment and the best advice that he can get, will be the most advantageous to him. If the patent has expired, as in this case, he is compelled by the law to bring his action before a jury, and the attitude in which he stands is this: He has no longer an exclusive right to this invention. That is to say, it is competent for any person in the community, notwithstanding the patent which we have here produced, at this present time, and to-day, to make the machine described in his patent. During the period of time, however, when the patent was in force, it was not lawful for any person to make such a machine. Therefore, if during that time, as is here alleged, the defendants have made a machine which contains the invention patented by him, supposing you find that to be a practical and valid invention, then his right now to recover such damages as he may have suffered is perfect and complete.

The provision of law that no person shall take, or use, or infringe the rights of a patentee does not depend upon the knowledge on the part of the public of the patent itself that is to say,...