Southern Plow Co. v. Atlanta Agricultural Works

• Decision Date: 30 November 1908
• Docket Number: 1,290.
• Parties: SOUTHERN PLOW CO. v. ATLANTA AGRICULTURAL WORKS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

165 F. 214

SOUTHERN PLOW CO. v. ATLANTA AGRICULTURAL WORKS.

No. 1,290.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. Georgia.

November 30, 1908

Smith &amp Hastings (John M. Coit, of counsel), for complainant.

Dean &amp Dean and Smith, Hammond & Smith, for defendant.

NEWMAN District Judge.

This is a bill filed by the complainant against the defendant to enjoin infringement by the defendant company of certain patents of which the complainant company is the assignee.

The first is patent No. 815,698, issued to Elias Haiman on the 20th day of March, 1906, and the second is patent No 807,967, issued to Eugene Rosenbaum on the 19th day of December, 1905. Haiman's patent is for improvement in farming implements, and Rosenbaum's patent is for improvement in cultivators. The claims in the Haiman patent are as follows:

'(1) In farming implements, as a cultivator or harrow, a central beam, laterally-curved braces on opposite sides of said beam rigidly fixed thereto at both ends and having each a series of perforations in its outer curved portion, in combination with a pair of parallel tooth-bars on each side of said beam, transverse carrying-bars in pairs pivoted to said beam on each side and having said tooth-bars pivotally connected therewith, and means to adjustably lock said carrying-bars with the corresponding curved brace through the said perforations therein.

'(2) In an implement, as a cultivator or harrow, a rigid frame comprising a central beam and substantially segmental-shaped braces G fixed to said beam at their ends and provided with a series of holes, 6, in their outer curved portions, in combination with the parallel carrying-bars E and F, one of said bars at each side adapted to be adjustably-locked on the corresponding brace G, and parallel tooth-bars B, on each side pivotally attached to both the carrying-bars E and F, respectively, whereby the parallel relations of said several bars B, E, and F are maintained through all adjustments and said bars are rigidly fixed in all adjusted positions.

'(3) In a cultivator, a central beam and parallel tooth-bars, pivotal connections transversely between said beam and bars, and segments for adjusting said bars in respect to said beam and for fixing the beams rigidly in any adjusted position.'

The claims in the Rosenbaum patent are as follows:

'(1) A beam, pairs of parallel bars connected pivotally with and extending in opposite directions from the beam, earth-engaging members pivotally connecting the parallel bars and serving to keep them in parallel relation, a circular brace securely connected with the beam, and means for connecting one of each pair of parallel bars adjustably with the circular brace.

'(2) A beam, pairs of parallel bars connected pivotally with and extending in opposite directions from the beam, earth-engaging members connected pivotally with the parallel bars and serving to retain the latter in parallel relation, and means permanently connected with the beam and adapted for temporary engagement with one of each pair of parallel bars to maintain the latter in any of the positions to which they may be adjusted.

'(3) A beam, pairs of parallel bars connected pivotally with and extending in opposite directions from the beams, earth-engaging members connected pivotally with the parallel bars and serving to retain the latter in parallel relation, a brace connected securely with the beam and engaging the upper sides of the pivoted parallel bars in any of the positions to which the latter may be adjusted to prevent upward displacement of the free ends of said parallel bars, and means for adjustably connecting said bars and brace.'

To this bill a demurrer is filed upon two grounds: The first is that neither of the structures described in the letters patent set up by complainant constitutes an invention, and both of them are merely combinations of old elements and collections of old devices, resulting in no new mode or operation and no new function, and that each and all of the elements therein, and the resulting structures and the functions thereof, are old and within common knowledge. The second ground of the demurrer is as follows:

'Because the essential elements and functions of the two patents set up by the plaintiff as the basis of its bill in this case are substantially and almost entirely the same, and one of the said patents is necessarily an interference with the other, according as the date of the alleged conception of the invention of the one precedes that of the other. This defendant says that two valid patents cannot, under the law, be granted for the same thing, and there is no patentable distinction between the claims of the respective patents set forth in the above-stated case.'

Taking in inverse order the grounds of demurrer, the defendant claims that the joinder in one suit of claims for infringement of two patents is improper. This practice has been sustained in a number of claims. In Green v. City of Lynn (C.C.) 81 F. 387, Circuit Judge Putnam on this subject says:

'The complainant brought a bill in equity for alleged infringements of two patents relating to the same subject-matter, and therefore very properly included in the same suit. A consolidation of this character within reasonable limits is for the interest of the public as well as of private litigants, and should not be discouraged by too stringent rules as to costs or otherwise.'

In American Graphophone Company v. Leeds & Catlin Co. (C.C.) 131 F. 281, Judge Platt, referring to one of the objections raised by the demurrer to the bill in that case, says:

'That it is multifarious, in that it involves the validity and infringement of two separate patents. The bill avers not only that they are capable of conjoint use, but that they are used conjointly by the complainant, and that the defendants jointly infringe both patents by their product.

In a general sense, the demurrer should be taken to admit so important an allegation; but, as the patents themselves have become a part of the bill, it may be that if, upon inspection, there is a manifest inconsistency between the allegation and the meaning of the patents, a dismissal of the bill would be in order. No such situation appears in the case.'

In Edison Phonograph Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co. (C.C.) 120 F. 305, Judge Archbald says:

'The bill is demurred to on the ground of multifariousness, because it involves the validity and infringement of three separate patents; but it is averred in the bill that the three are not only capable of being conjointly used, but that, in the apparatus of the defendant complained of, they are in fact so used. This is a distinct and positive averment, which the demurrer necessarily admits.'

In the case at bar one paragraph of the bill is as follows:

'That the said inventions described and claimed in said letters patent No. 815,698 and No. 807,967 are capable of conjoint use in one and the same machine, and are actually so used by your orator and by the defendant herein.'

I do not think that this ground of demurrer is meritorious.

The next question considered, but raised by the first ground of the demurrer, is, that both structures described in the letters patent set up by the complainant lack novelty and invention; that they are merely combinations of old elements the functions thereof are old and within common knowledge. The presumption...