T.L. Smith Co. v. Cement Tile Machinery Co.
| Decision Date | 25 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 5153. |
| Citation | 257 F. 423 |
| Parties | T. L. SMITH CO. et al. v. CEMENT TILE MACHINERY CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1919.
George L. Wilkinson, of Chicago, Ill. (Alfred Longley, of Waterloo Iowa, on the brief), for appellants.
John E Stryker, of St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.
Before HOOK, Circuit Judge, and TRIEBER, District Judge.
This is a suit by the T. L. Smith Company and others for infringement of certain claims of patent No. 803,721, issued to that company as assignee November 7, 1905, for an improvement in mixing machines especially adapted for mixing concrete, etc. A prior suit in the Seventh Circuit by the same plaintiffs against one Foster was defended by the present defendant, the Cement Tile Machinery Company, as the maker and vendor of the machine claimed to infringe. It was held in that case that the Smith patent was not anticipated by prior patents, among which were a British patent, No. 441, to Day and Lampard, August 2, 1878, and patent No. 433,663 to Taylor, August 5, 1890; also that the Smith patent, which was for a combination of old elements, disclosed invention, and that the machine used by Foster infringed. The decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of that circuit. Foster v. T. L. Smith Co., 157 C.C.A. 296, 244 F 946. The present defendant made a change in its machine, which it contends was not involved in or affected by the decision in the Foster Case, but followed the prior patent to Taylor in the particulars in question. This suit was then brought, first, to enforce against the defendant the decree against Foster; and, second, for a decree that the modified structure of defendant also infringed. The trial court gave the first relief and denied the second. 249 F. 481. The plaintiffs appealed from the latter.
The decree in the first suit is conclusive against the defendant as to the validity of the Smith patent and infringement by the machine it made and sold to Foster. Defendant's modified structure, however, was not in issue in that case, and was not considered by the court, and the question here is whether, in the light of the former decision, it infringes also. If the change from the Foster machine is a substantial departure from a vital element or elements of the patent in suit, or a reversion to the prior art, it cannot be said that plaintiffs' rights are invaded. The sustaining of a patent upon a differentiation from the prior art does not authorize the successful party to gather to himself a monopoly of what was old when he entered the field. The prior Taylor patent has expired. Its disclosures are public property, and no range of equivalents can be accorded the Smith patent that would embrace them.
Roughly speaking, a mixing machine comprises a bowl or receptacle for the materials to be mixed, attached to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siebring v. Hansen
...entered pursuant to a consent decree in the original action, the validity of patent claims is not in issue. T. L. Smith Co. v. Cement Tile Machinery Co., 257 F. 423 (8 Cir. 1919), cert. denied 250 U.S. 669, 40 S.Ct. 14, 63 L.Ed. 1198 (1919); D. E. Stearns Company v. Brashear, 145 F. Supp. 7......
-
Clements Mfg. Co. v. Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co.
...v. American Mach. Co. (D. C.) 276 F. 436, 441; D'Arcy v. Staples & Hanford Co. (C. C. A.) 161 F. 733, 738; T. L. Smith Co. v. Cement Tile Machinery Co. (C. C. A.) 257 F. 423, 424. Even if the defendant was a party privy to the Regina suit, which it was not, it is not estopped from using the......
-
Galion Iron Works & Mfg. Co. v. Beckwith Mach. Co.
...3 Cir., 92 F.2d 386, 388. 2 Thompson v. Boisselier, 114 U.S. 1, 9, 5 S.Ct. 1042, 1046, 1047, 29 L.Ed. 76; T. L. Smith Co. v. Cement Tile Machinery Co., 8 Cir., 257 F. 423, 424; Stafford v. Albers Bros. Milling Co., 9 Cir., 263 F. 86; Western Electric Co. v. Wallerstein, 2 Cir., 60 F.2d 723,......
-
United States Rubber Co. v. General Tire & Rubber Co.
...was deemed to be whether, in the light of the former decision, the modified structure also infringed. T. L. Smith Company v. Cement Tile Machinery Company, 257 F. 423, 424. Moreover, in Mills Novelty Company v. Monarch Tool & Manufacturing Company, 6 Cir., 76 F.2d 653, 654, we expressed the......