St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1914-11-21
LAYNEA AND BOWLER OMPANY's
Notice to All Actual and Prospective Users OF Deep Wen
Centrifugal or Turbine Pumps Using Enclosed
Drive Shaft or Protected Bearings.

Drive Shaft or Protected Bearings.
Layne & Bowler Company own or control the following pat
ents I ps5tsn Patent to p issasd 1 to " Tf I. n nsshs apes well msebsnisns:
May q, , 1905, Serial No No 81, s 81,
S ~ s !. i isi5;. . !" { SsiSs ,n.,..,.,
The different patents relate to our Enclosed Line sAalt P41ap
with protected bearings and steel sho pit inter r T. g.o aeylc eaca You gu
can obtain copies of them from the United States faeehe once u
In all the tbsI suits hereinafter ere aft ern referred err ds t. not % one sgs q our aoi p asfa5I
r rsgief i Or or to q f Grae e5ss IS which III iP bss 5een decided sd ine osa'' patent
SUITS DECIDED IN ORU FAVOR IN THE UNITED STATES
COURTS
The he foil following wing suits It's concerning f1nHed sf. hay cen Patents have been De
M. E. LAYNE
Ri Campo Machine Company, 81 Campo, Texas.
stancif Manufacturing Co., Houston, Texas.
N sni +. v Ms n Merf We Statf fouisia Asa'
M. D. L. Webb, Stuttgart, Ark.
The above defendants M. d. Webb excepted are mani.
All the a above suits We're vigorously contested at Heavy Cost on
both sides, the litigation cost US over $so 10000 and probably as
been validated by four different United States Courts. The United
{ 81 said court and held in al Instances to be infringed by the above
defendants.
are being brought in n the United States Courts Of Arkansas and
f. LAYNE and LAYNE & BOWLER CO..
Krumpen Machine Wkss Stuttgart, Ark.
K AsG F. seH hsunDso'
stammscheele Mfg. Co, Rayne Louisiana.
4. D. Dunn, Humphrey, Ark.
j. F. Nichols, Stuttgart, Ark.
enclosed line line hiatt Centrifugal "a , pump rp1' with I'll protested b ass e g. g
bearing our patent license tag will be legally punished-this a-
plies not only to the manufacturers and sellers but also to the users
USERS OF PUMPS ARE LIABLE
If you consult an attorney, you will find that the use OF a
patented article is an infringement as much as the manufacture
SHAFTS sT lns s w sdh P PfaSsi AZ pG BEaR sag{Rge s1e with II ea 9sals LINE
infringements.. The user of a pump constituting an infringement
q fse eq oa patents risb4s is s q az ga esys IS fss q ma antffs vasr ta and j; u . a, to pro-
infringing pump you are liable for damages for the use Of same
Some farmers and other users profess not to understand why
we sue the user Of a pump which infringes our patent instead Of
n iii q Is to !, sue either + manufacture a1 IA : seller i Or user ser: and u Usually ! p the
1 nhies IS a more 0 sbsn e assr Be q SAID Rpn Il so as e eorpo.stion, re Wbie5 lie.
fringe patents Patent litigation is Of slow progress and while
2 manufacturing corporation, such corporations may have sold
Gnlted Wet Fl R RRmDs e fs saut latsr * 2rf 6anksup 9snd others Fer s11l IsapIsg the the
judgement for damages without value; SO as a matter of self pro-
lection we are obliged to sue the user as well as the, manufactured
The user may say: wei, the manufacturer protects us, !, but
Well Works. Who has protected them and why ilyT it's 5 they y are eh now
paying the Layne & Bowler Company damages, orroyalty for use of
We have filed suits in the United States Courts against a mum
Der Of users of pumps which we believe infringe our patents. We
are. therefore, putting you on notice concerning our rights for
This ought to be sufficient notice to farmers and others using
or contemplating the use Of irrigation pumps which infringe our
patents that we mean business and that we mean to protect our
rights. To this end We have some fifteen attorneys in different ]
territories who will give their best attention to the matter of pro- !
tecting our patents We do not want to bring suit against any
one, but we will be forced to bring suit against every purchaser Of /
d pump that infringes our patents, and for your information will !
atthus far every patent suit brought by US has been decid- I
ed in our favor. Z
The people in the market for irrigation machinery have been !
informed and lead to believe for the last four Or five years by par i
lies infringing our patents, that we were simply blufing and would I
not bring sut(but we were forced to bring suit and that we could Z
not hope to have our PATENTED ENCLOSED LINE SHAFT !
PUMP WITH PROTECTED BEARINGS VALIDATED, (but the J
courts have validated same Il
Most Of the Irrigation People know that we were the first to !
introduce a pump not requiring an openpit in combination with the !
ENCLOSED LINE SHAFT PUMP. They also know =
this style of pump is being almost exclusively used. S
For your information will quote you the following which is
paragraph from the latest decision rendered by the United States :.
Court of Appeals at New Orleans and speaks for itself: y
Comparing the conceded practical benefit that has. been de-
from Laynes Patented Pump with the theoretical argument -
the defendant we have come to the conclusion that the former i
hould prevail, and that claim 20 of the compliments Patent i
hould be sustained, and that the defendants apparatus should be
led to infringe it in the one respect of a closed casing for the
shaft of the designed and with the triple function attributed
b tin the specifications of Layne's patent. !