Sieber & Trussel Mfg. Co. v. Chicago Binder & File Co.

• Decision Date: 19 March 1910
• Docket Number: 28,721.
• Citation: 177 F. 439
• Parties: SIEBER & TRUSSEL MFG. CO. v. CHICAGO BINDER & FILE CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

177 F. 439

SIEBER & TRUSSEL MFG. CO. v. CHICAGO BINDER & FILE CO.

No. 28,721.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

March 19, 1910

Gillson & Gillson, for complainant.

Dyrenforth Lee, Chritton & Wiles, for defendant.

SANBORN District Judge.

Suit for infringement of patent No. 806,702, issued to Nelson Dawson, and Trussel December 5, 1905, for a self-locking loose-leaf binder. Defendant's device is nearly the same as complainant's, so that infringement is reasonably clear if the patent is valid. Two reasons for avoiding it are urged upon the record: (1) Improper joinder of applicants for patent; (2) want of novelty. As to the first ground, I think the evidence shows joint invention. It is far from satisfactory, but the manner in which the binder was brought out, the purpose of producing it, and the relations of the parties, all lead me to think it was the invention of all the patentees. This point may be passed because the second one I think decisive of the case against the complainant. But it may be properly said that improper joinder is a purely technical defense, and should not be favored especially after the patent is assigned.

Novelty in the patent in suit seems to be entirely negatived by the prior art, particularly by the Lehy patent for a box fastening, No. 335,822, issued Feb. 9, 1886. That defendant has adopted and greatly profited by complainant's device clearly appears. Its conduct is said to have been quite unfair, and there seems to be sufficient support for the charge. But, if this was within its technical right complainant must submit.

The patent is for a combination of the end plates of a loose-leaf binder with an automatic locking device, easily used, working with precision, readily opened and shut. Its utility is manifest. A number of prior inventions were in use, having all the elements of the patent but one. The common features of these binders may be described as follows: Two binder plates, hinged longitudinally on one of their edges by a continuous rod known as the piano hinge, are armed with overlapping prongs to pass through holes in the leaves when the book is shut, and to allow the leaves to be taken out when it is open.

End plates are attached to the binder plates for the sole purpose of holding them together when closed. The edges of these end plates slip by each other just like shears, and mounted on these edges is some form of locking device. Several of these binders had been patented, and defendant had acquired three of the patents. The trouble with all of them was in the locking device. Most of them used spring latches, varied, but generally similar to each other. A common form was to fasten a push button or stud to a leaf spring, much like the blade of a penknife, and mount the spring on one of the end plates in a position so that the stud would drop into two registering holes in the plates when the shutting of the binder registered or brought the holes opposite each other, and thus lock the binder. By pressing upon the push button the spring was forced back and the latch released, in order to open the binder. There were several forms of locking device using the leaf spring, but the principle of operation was quite similar.

There were various disadvantages in these prior devices which were overcome by the patentees. The end plates were not securely locked together when closed, so that strain by weight of leaves or overloading came on the spring, and there was a tendency in the binders to open, and the end plates to get out of place. There were no guides to carry the stud into the...