Swindell v. Hagan
| Decision Date | 27 August 1912 |
| Docket Number | 84. |
| Citation | 198 F. 490 |
| Parties | SWINDELL et al. v. HAGAN. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Bakewell & Byrnes, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for complainants.
Harry Easton, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
This is a patent case, now before the court on final hearing upon bill, answer, replication, and proofs. The plaintiffs, having title, charge infringement of letters patent of the United States No. 624,401, issued May 2, 1899, to William Swindell and John C. Swindell for an annealing furnace. The bill is in the usual form and prays the customary relief. While there are no unusual defenses, there is an unusual number of references to alleged disclosures in the prior art, there being cited 104 United States patents, 2 French patents, 6 British patents, 7 specified prior publications, and 19 specified prior installations and uses. Of all these references, not more than 13 were used in the argument and brief in behalf of defendant. The inclusion by the pleader of references, unless they are thought to be material to the issues, is not to be commended. It adds more weight to the burden of litigation, but rarely gives increased weight to the defense.
Under the authority of the plaintiffs, a partnership with the firm name of William Swindell & Bros. has been constructing and installing annealing furnaces as described and covered in the patent from the year 1898 to date. Such installations are found in the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and at the time the testimony was taken numbered 138 in all. The defendant is also engaged in building annealing furnaces, and has been in business for himself since 1909. Since that date, at least, he has built some annealing furnaces which plaintiffs charge are infringements of the patent. His testimony is not clear as to the time when his present form of annealing furnace was first used. He thinks that Mr. Erickson, by whom he was employed first erected such annealing furnaces as early as 1900. His description of the Erickson construction does not clearly bear him out. He failed to produce, or account for the nonproduction of, Mr. Erickson, who was living, as a witness. It may therefore fairly be presumed that Mr. Erickson's testimony would not be favorable to the defendant. From all the evidence it is clear that the Swindell annealing furnace for a period of 10 years was the generally accepted annealing furnace under conditions which afforded the use of natural or artificial gas.
The utility of plaintiffs' annealing furnace and the presumption of its novelty are better realized when consideration is given to the facts that annealing furnaces are built for the treatment by intense heat of tons of material at a time, that the weight of such material requires strong and expensive construction, and that for such reasons the users are comparatively few. It is not necessary to make extended reference to the specification forming part of the patent. It is stated therein:
'Our invention relates more particularly to furnaces of the class designed to receive and impart heat to annealing boxes containing sheets, plates, or other articles which are to be annealed; and its object is to provide a furnace of such class in which a uniform degree of heat may be imparted to the annealing boxes and an economical consumption of gaseous fuel be attained.'
The patentees specify such correlation between the air-supply and waste-flues and the floor of the annealing furnace that the air is greatly heated before the moment of combustion and the heat of the waste gases utilized before their escape.
The defendant is charged with the infringement of the first two claims of the patent, which are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swindell v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
...against George Hagen for infringement of the letters patent, where, on August 27, 1912, the patent was held to be valid and infringed (198 F. 490), and on April 1913, the decree was affirmed (204 F. 442, 122 C.C.A. 628 (C.C.A. 3d Cir.)). On the 15th of July following, the appellee sent a le......
-
Hagan v. Swindell
...deceased, and John C. Swindell, against George J. Hagan. Decree for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. For opinion below, see 198 F. 490. (s 328*)-- VALIDITY AND INFRINGEMENT-- ANNEALING FURNACE. The Swindell patent, No. 624,4018 for an annealing furnace, in which gas is used as t......