Trusty v. United States

Decision Date15 June 1955
Docket NumberNo. 50286.,50286.
Citation132 F. Supp. 340
PartiesMary Agnes TRUSTY, Harry P. Trusty and Trusty Air-Cargo Conveyor Company, a Corporation, v. The UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Claims Court

Alan Franklin, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs.

G. M. Paddack, Washington, D. C., Warren E. Burger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and LITTLETON, WHITAKER, MADDEN and LARAMORE, Judges.

LARAMORE, Judge.

This is a suit for patent infringement. Plaintiffs contend that claim 1 of patent 1,859,542, and claims 1 and 2 of patent 2,390,230 are infringed by the United States paratrooper's equipment comprising a back-attached parachute, a static line, and an overhead anchor line in the plane, which lines co-act to pull off the parachute cover when the paratrooper jumps from the plane.

Patent 1,859,542 was issued to plaintiff, Harry P. Trusty, on May 24, 1932, on an application filed on October 8, 1929, and is entitled "Life Preserving Mechanism for Airships." In general, this patent discloses a combination of seats, each pivotally and removably mounted in a plane next to one of a series of doors through which, upon actuation by the pilot, the seats and their occupants are swung, on a davit arrangement, to a position outside the plane and then dropped. Thereupon, a parachute, located exteriorly near each door and connected with the adjacent seat, is drawn forth for lowering the seated passengers to earth.1

Patent 2,390,230 was issued to plaintiff on December 4, 1945, on an application filed June 19, 1942, and is entitled "Automatic Parachute Delivery Mechanism for Aircraft." In general, this patent discloses mechanisms for the same purpose as those shown in the first patent. The second patent shows a single line of seats mounted on a track system of rails and rollers. An endless chain mechanism engaging the rollers is provided to push the seats along the track. A motor actuated and controlled by the pilot causes the chain and rollers to move the seats successively rearwardly and then laterally to a side door. Each seat has a parachute pack attached to the rear of the seat back, the parachute being provided with a static line or cord secured at one end to the cover of the parachute, and at the other end to a snap hook. The snap hook is attached to a ring which slidably engages a guide rod located near the floor and extending alongside the track system. When the seat is moved to the door and dropped from the airplane, the static cord, having pulled its ring along the guide rod to a stop at the doorway, becomes extended by the fall of the seat and the parachute cover is jerked off. When the assembly between the parachute cover and the seat becomes fully extended, a break cord connecting the cover to the apex of the parachute canopy is ruptured and the parachute opens lowering the seat to the ground. Both the parachute cover and the static cord are left attached to the guide rod of the airplane.

The three claims in suit are as follows:

"Claim 1 of Patent 1,859,542
"In a life preserving mechanism for airships, seats for passengers, parachutes connected to said seats, and means, operated by the pilot of the airship, for swinging said seats, with the passengers therein, out of the airship, and dropping the seats and passengers in said parachutes.
"Claim 1 of Patent 2,390,230
"In combination with an airplane and its cabin with a door in a side wall of said cabin at the rear of the wings of the plane, a plurality of parachute carriers movably mounted in said cabin one behind the other longitudinally of said cabin, parachutes connected to said carriers, respectively, means whereby said carriers may be conveyed longitudinally rearwardly and then laterally in the cabin out through said cabin door and dropped from the plane, and means whereby said parachutes are automatically opened when said carriers are dropped from the plane.
"Claim 2 of Patent 2,390,230
"In combination with an airplane, a parachute carrier, a parachute container comprising a container member secured on said carrier and a container cover detachably mounted on said container member, a parachute enclosed in said container, a cord connecting the top of said parachute to the inside of said container cover, risers connected at one end to the shroud lines of said parachute with their other ends projecting out of said container, a harness in which said carrier is mounted with the upper ends of said harness connected to said other projecting ends of said risers, a static cord connected at one end to said container cover, a guide rod mounted in said plane and extending to a door in one side of the plane at the rear of the plane wings, and the rear end of said guide rod being secured to a fixed part in said plane, a ring connected to the other end of said static cord and slidable on said guide rod, and means whereby said carrier may be conveyed from said plane out through said door and dropped into space, while said static cord ring is drawn by the carrier and static cord to the rear secured end of said guide rod and said ring retained on said rear end of said guide rod."

The parties have agreed that prior to the filing of this suit defendant was using parachute delivery mechanisms for aircraft, including static cords. It is plaintiffs' position that five structures employed by defendant infringed selected claims of plaintiffs' patents.

The first accused structure is entitled "Trolley, AC-1 Bailout and Escape Parachute Trainer, Type A-1." The military specifications placed in evidence by plaintiffs disclose a trolley assembly consisting of pulley wheels, plates, braces, and a harness support bar, and state that the trolley was intended for use with the type AC-1 bailout and escape trainer to train aircrew members in the proper technique of bailing out of aircraft. There was no evidence offered of the actual use of this particular mechanism in aircraft. One witness called by plaintiffs testified that the trolley assembly disclosed in the specifications was similar to a trolley assembly employed in connection with a mock-up tower used in his preliminary training as a paratrooper at Fort Benning, Georgia, in 1946. (Finding 9)

The second accused structure was disclosed by two photographs of the cabin interior of an airplane. One picture showed bench-like seats extending along either side of an airplane cabin, and the other picture showed the same seats stowed or folded down against the cabin walls. The seats were in no way related to any parachute or life preserving system or mechanism. An anchor cable was shown extending longitudinally in the plane cabin near the ceiling. The printed material in connection with the photographs stated that when the seats were not being used for passengers, they might be folded against the sides of the cargo compartment; that safety belts were installed in the fittings on the bench support beams; that the cabin was equipped with a flexible steel anchor cable and attaching fittings, which could be removed and stowed out of the way when not in use; that the floor was equipped with skidproof panels to assure safe footing for the paratroops; that the flooring should be removed before loading cargo since it was not designed to handle any loads greater than would be applied by paratroops.

The third alleged infringing structure consisted of a steel anchor cable installed in various types of Government airplanes. The structure was evidenced by a blueprint of a U. S. Army Air Corps' drawing showing the cable extending longitudinally near the ceiling of a plane cabin from a point near the front bulkhead, past the side door, to a point near the rear bulkhead. The specifications noted that the one-quarter inch cable should be of sufficient length to permit a six-inch sag to be adjusted to suit each airplane.

The fourth structure was evidenced by a blueprint of a Fairchild Aircraft drawing of a swage-type cable assembly design for securing the ends of an anchor cable in an airplane.

The fifth structure consisted of certain paratrooper's equipment of the Army, consisting primarily of a main parachute pack with a static line or cord, the outer end of which had a snap hook adapted to engage and slide along an anchor cable of the type described as the third infringing structure above. A reserve parachute pack of the chest type was part of this equipment. A harness is provided to fit about the body of the paratrooper, and the tray of the main parachute pack is secured on the harness against the back of the wearer. The parachute proper is assembled on the tray, and a cover over the parachute is laced to the edge of the tray. The static line is secured at one end to the outer side of the cover. By means of the snap hook at the other end, the individual paratroopers attach their static cords to the overhead anchor cable in preparation for the jump. The paratroopers form a line and walk in succession to the side door and manually move their snap hooks along the cable. As each man jumps through the doorway, the static line is extended, and the cover is jerked off the parachute tray. The cover is attached to the apex of the parachute canopy by means of a break cord. The canopy, and in succession, its attached shroud lines and suspension ropes secured to the harness are drawn from the tray, and when fully extended, the break cord is ruptured and the paratrooper is lowered to the ground. The cover and static line are left attached to the anchor cable of the plane. A reserve pack is used only in the event of failure of the main pack to function. It is secured to the harness in front of the paratrooper's chest and is manually operated by the pulling of a rip cord as distinguished from the automatic operation of the main pack. Plaintiffs do not allege that the reserve pack is an infringing structure.

The commissioner found (finding 14) that none of the alleged infringing structures had "seats for passengers" or ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tate Engineering, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • May 11, 1973
    ...equivalents applies. Soundscriber Corp. v. United States, 360 F.2d 954, 961, 175 Ct.Cl. 644, 652 (1966) ; Trusty v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 340, 344, 132 Ct.Cl. 192, 199-201 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 975, 76 S.Ct. 453, 100 L.Ed. 846 (1956) ; Richardson v. United States, 72 Ct.Cl. 51......
  • Interdent Corp. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • March 17, 1976
    ...Corp. v. United States, 360 F.2d 954, 961, 175 Ct.Cl. 644, 652, 149 USPQ 640 (1966); Trusty v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 340, 344, 132 Ct.Cl. 192, 199-201, 105 USPQ 474, 477 (1955), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 975 (1956); Richardson v. United States, 72 Ct.Cl. 51, 65 (1930), 7 USPQ 194, 197, ce......
  • Farrell Marine Devices, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • April 14, 1967
    ...claimed invention is narrow. Soundscriber Corp. v. United States, 360 F.2d 954, 175 Ct. Cl. 644 (1966); Trusty v. United States, 132 F.Supp. 340, 344, 132 Ct.Cl. 192, 199-201 (1955), cert. den. 350 U.S. 975, 76 S.Ct. 453, 100 L.Ed. 846 (1956); Richardson v. United States, 72 Ct.Cl. 51, 65 (......
  • United States v. Turner, 55 CR 102.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 6, 1955

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT