New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-06-14
KaXon-NeWtone Case En-
phaSiZes Criticism So
Often Made.
LITIGATION COSTLY,
EVEN TO WINNER
la Horn Controversy Defendants
Business Was Tied Up and
800 Men Kept Idle.

The recent decision OF the United States
Circuit Court OF Appeals in the case OF
,ra Lowell Mcconnell Company against
SIZE Automobile Supply Manufacturing
mpany. following, as it does. the SINH
decision i'm the famous Selden case,
IS again aroused comment by no means
. ,orable 10 the existing patent laws and
methods Of enforcing them. In the
Mon Of automobile and accessory man
lecturers too many patents are granted
ich disclose no invention at all.
he court decisions are proof that about
n tho claims are declared invalid when
,.ectcd 10 the searching analysis Of
yer judges. Many concerns have had
stand the enormous expenses of costly
uits involved in several years Of litiga-
ion. and while the law allows the pat
,r. ee to recover damages, expenses. etc.
81 The patent is sustained, there is no re-
dress and no compensation whatever for
the defendant in case the patent is de-
ciared invalid.
The Klaxon Company for three and
rs.f years has embarrassed the Automo-
hps supply Manufacturing Company, OF
Brooklyn. with many suits owing to the
fact that the latter manufactured and
marketed a horn that gave forth the same
sound as a I[laXon. I'm addition to suing
the maker Of these horns. they sued many
iol,bers and car manufacturers that ham
died them.
The Brooklyn concern has been defend
inr all the suits They have had to de-
FRAY all the expenses They have had TO
give surety bonds TO protect their GUS
toners in case of damages. etc, the de-
PENDANT contending that all the claims
we're invalid and not infringed.
After three years of litigation Judge
Chatdeld. with his opinion Of January O.
1911 and his decree OF January 10, 1914
sustained all the three KlaXon patents,
v,tb all the forty-eight claims in the suit
anioining the Automobile Supply Manu-
facturing Company from making, using
or selling its horns, because the sound
was evidence Of infringement of the
method used in the KlaXon device.
The Brooklyn company, after having
Invested $3.50 OO0 was forced 10 close its
factory. discharging more than three
hundred workmen. and having on hand
over $50 600 of finished stock, contracted
TO be delivered this spring. It applied for
a stay Of injunction pending appeal, ask
ing the court 10 permit the sale OF a linz
;ted number Of horns under bond but the
motion was denied on February "a, Judge
Chatfeld stating that he could not name
any amount adequate to protect the
Klaxon Company.
Again, on a second motion in April, the
Brooklyn concern applied for permission
10 sell only the small number of horns it
had contracted TO deliver in that month.
Offering half the proceeds Of the sale
Again the Judge denied the motion, and
the company had all its orders can
ceIed on account OF non-delivery.
Now the Court OF Appeals has unani-
mously decided that a noise is not pat
entable' that all the basic claims are in
valid. and that the specific claims are not
infrnged reversing utterly the previous
decision OF Judge Chatheld, with costs, in
favor Of the Automobile Supply Man
featuring Company Those who are
familiar with the situation. however, are
wondering who is going 10 compensate
the Automobile Supply Manufacturing
Company for the loss Of sales Of its horns
and for the expenses of litigation, the
enormous fees to lawyers, etc.
The law, il is generally thought, should
make it mandatory for the court TO &C
eept bond and permit business pending
appeal. In this instance the court appar-
ertly did not consider the great injury
and damage caused TO the defendants,
although there was room for reasonable
doubt by the fact of the numerous antici-
pstions brought into the suit covering the
same ground.
The denial OF the stay, pending appeal
no matter what amount Of bond or cash
was offered, undoubtedly worked hard
snip on the defendants in this case and
on the three hundred men thrown out OF
work. II would appear logical that q law
which protects the rights OF the patentee
should equally protect the defendant. as
the case in France. Germany. Italy
ana other countries.