The Portland daily press., 1895-11-11
sULPHlTE PULP.
A Decision Given in Favor of the Rowland
Falls Co.

Judge Putnam handed down on
Saturday a decision in the
case of the American Sui
phite Pulp Co., of Boston VS.. Rowland
Falls Pulp Co., of Lincoln, Mo. This de-
cision is for the defendant. This case in
wolves controversy over patent issued
to George f. Russell, growing out of an
application filed April TO- 1890, and
eliminating in reissue dated Nov 10,
1892 The paten5 relates to improve
ments in construction of digesters, IN
which wood pulp is manufactured by
the sulphite process.
The attorneys i'll the case have been
Causten Browne, and Alexan der p.
Browne, of Boston, for the plaintiff.
and J. i. S. Roberts, of Boston. and B.
D. and H. NJ Verrill, of Portland for the
defendant
The case started in tho United States
court, before Judge Putnam, and the de-
cision now rendered is by him. 1t is a
yolumlnous decision. The pulp
digester over which the Con-
troversy arises, is one of those large boil
CTS i'll which wood is chemically treated
in order to make sulphite pulp. These
digesterA are made of boiler iron or steel,
but in order to prevent the destruction
of this iron or steel by the acids, it has
been found necessary to line the digester.
And an excellent lining for this pur-
pose was found to be continuous into
rior coating of Portland cement, on and
in which were laid addressing bricks
on tileing.
The plaintiff claimed to have patent Old
this device, and when the Rowland
Falls ulp Co. attempted to use the di-
gesters, a suit for infringement was
brought.
The defense was that the alleged patent
involved no novelty in the Russell pat
emit; that the same method of lining.
with the same CT similar materials, had
long previously been patented and used in
different parts of Europe and was in use
in this country before the Russell patent
was obtained; that RusselPs patent was
invalid by reason of his not having exper-
imentally reduced it to a working basis !;
and that The Rowland Falls patented de-
vice was not an Infringement of the
Russell patent mainly for the rea son
that did not use bricks or tiles, but
blocks constructed of cement and other
materials and vitri1ied. 5iF5 say
This decision is very important for
if the American Sulphite Pulp Co could
have maintained the validity CT the pat
emit it would practically have been able TO
lnonopolize the suIphite pulp business,
as this principle of lining is the only one
that has proved satisfactory. s ~
If this decision stands it will have an
important result on the pulp business of
Maine.
The case is liable to go to the U. S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, and may even
go to the United States Supreme Court
The hearing and arguments before the
Circuit Court occurred in Portland in
September. The bill of complaint was
entered in February, 1893.
The decision for the defendant was upon
tho ground that there was no invention
by Russell. The court says in conclud
ing the decision: son the whole we are
of the opinion that the complainant has
failed to prove by the degree of evidence
which we have pointed out is required
on it's behalf that the patentee had ac-
complished the invention relied on in
this case prior to the knowledge which
he derived from Springer's letter of July
80 1887 The letter here referred to
communicated a description Of the
Wensel lining in use in Europe.