The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1914-12-01
LAYaE AND BOWLER COMPANY
Continued from page one1

ages with out value; so as matter OF
self protection we are obliged to sue
the user. as well as the manufacturer
or seller or agent,
The user may say; well, the manu-
facturer protects us, but if this is so,
ask the users Of pumps sold to them by
the United Well works. Who has pro-
tected them and why it is they are now
paying the Layne & Bowler Company
damages, or royalty for use OF our en-.
closed line shaft.
We have filed suits in the United
States Courts against number of us.
erS OF pumps which we believe infringe
our patents. We are, therefore put
ting you on notice conc, ring our rights
for your own protection.
This ought to be sufficient notice to
farmers and others using or cOntem.
plating 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 diff.
ferent territories who will give their
best attention to the matter of pro.
tecting our patents.
We do not want to bring suit 40
gainst any ore, but we will be forced to
bring suit against every purchaser OF
a pump that infringeS our patents,
and for you information will state
that thus far every patent suit
brought by us has been decided in
our favor.
The people in the market for irri.
cation machinery have been informed
and lead to believe for the last four
or five years by parties infringing
our patents that we were simply
bluffing and would not bring suit
but we were forced to bring suit
and that we could not hope to
have our Patented Enclosed Line
Shaft pump With Protected Bearings
Validated, tbut the courts have vail.
dated same
Most of the Irrigation People know
that we were the first to introduce
pump not requiring an open pit in
combination with the Patented En-
closed Line Shaft Pump. They also
know that this style of pump is
being almost exclusively used.
For your information will quote
you the following which is para.
graph from the latest decision rend.
cred by the United States Court of
Appeals at New Orleans and speaks
for itself:
Comparing the conceded practical
benefit that has been derived from
Layne'S Patented Pump with the thee.
retiCal argument of the defendant
we have come the to conclusion that
the former should prevail, and that
claim 20 of the complainats Patent
should be sustained, and that the
defendent's apparatus should be held
to infringe it in the one respect of
a closed casing for the pump shaft
of the design and with the triple
function attributed to it in the
Specifca tons of Layne'S patent.
The decree appealed from it is cor.
rect in so far as it recognizes the
validity Of the patent and finds the
appellee infringing the Goth, claim
thereof. 1t is therefore amended SO
that the LIST, End, 5th, 9Th 7th para
graph shall be read as follows;
"(D That the letters patent of
the United States, issued to Mahlon
E. Layne on May 20, 1905, bearing
the number 821,653, are good and
valid in law as to the claim is as
follows:
90 The combination of a well
casing, rotary pump therein and
a line shaft for the pump. entirely
closed off from the water in the
well.
IN That the said Mahlon E. Layne
was the first. true and original in.
ventor OF the invention and improve.
ment described in said letters pat
ent, and particularly recited in said
claim 2OS
t5) That thed defendantsMarvin B
VanNess, has infringed upon said let
tiers patent No. 821, 653, and particu
larry the sain 20. and upon the ex
elusive right of the compliments I'M
der same.
l6) That the complainantS recover
of the defendants the profits, gains
and advantages which the said de
| PENDANT has received or made. Oh