Case ID: f_226/html/0455-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COLUMBIA MACHINE & STOPPER CORPORATION v. ADRIANCE MACHINE & STOPPER CORPORATION. SAME v. RUBSAM & HORRMAN BREWING CO.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 25, 1915.)
    Nos. 305, 306.
    Patents ©=>328 — Validity and Infringement — Bottle Sealing Machine.
    Tlie Lawson .patent, No. 1,095,406, for a machine for applying bottle closures, discloses invention, covers a meritorious improvement on prior machines, and is entitled to a fair range of equivalents; also, held infringed.
    Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
    These causes come here upon appeals from decrees finding infringement by defendants of United States patent No. 1,095,406, issued May 5, 1914, to Clarence J. Lawson for an improvement in machines for applying bottle closures. The defendants in one suit are makers; in the other, users. The opinion of the District Judge will be found in 226 Fed. 203.
    Charles Neave and Alfred C. Coxe, Jr., both of New York City, and John W. Steward, of Patterson, N. J., for appellants.
    H. D. Williams and W. H. Kenyon, both of New York City, for appellee.
    Before LACOMBE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

We concur fully with Judge Veeder’s finding that the patented machine ‘‘embodies a highly useful and simple combination of elements whereby a sealing head is positively raised and lowered to perform the operation of capping bottles smoothly, swiftly, and with certainty of operation.” The combination is a novel one, a meritorious improvement of prior machines, and is entitled to' a fair range of equivalents. The question of infringement is more perplexing, because of a different cycle of movement of the principle cooperating parts; but we are inclined to concur with the reasoning by which Judge Veeder reached the conclusion that the variances are unimportant and that the language of the claim covers defendant’s device.

The decrees are affirmed with costs.