The Rice belt journal. (Welsh, Calcasieu Parish, La.) 1900-19??, 1914-12-08
TIE VAN NESS PUMP

Have y0Useen che late Improved Van
Ness bearlacleSs pump which has an
TN nCIosei Shat casing which does
not allow grit or worn out oil to col
lect inside OF sad line shaft casing?
/ The above described pumps have
| been in operation Tor the past two
seasons and have not caused cent
of expenca for repairs Or a moments
delay.
By reaiing Mr.. Layna'S lengthy
statement carefully, you will notice
that ne does NOT hold the pump that
am manufacturing to-day to be an
infringement Of his patent.
Mr.. Ltyne tries to claim that he
won in our suit, when, as matter
of fact, he was practically defeated
He originally entered suit against
me Oh twenty-five claims of his pa
tent. The Court OF Appeals held that
| infringeI only claim No. 20 of his
patent, and DID NOT infringe any OF
the other Il claims sued upon. Mr..
Layne is bound to admit that at least
the first half Of claim 20 is too. an.
Gent to be patentable viz; 1.-The COM
binatiOn Of a we'll casing and TO.
tary pump therein" The following
is an extract from the Courts de-
cree in the above referred to litiga.
ton.
"In the present case we are salts.
fed that claim Is is not infringed by
the Van Ness pump" \ 4 4 For these
reasons we do not find that the de-
PENDANTS pump infringeS claim 4,
since it admittedly has no system of
wedges, "
The above claim, Is, referred to by
the Court is the claim held valid in
the Ell Campo case a few years ago.
The Court held that the former
Van Ness pump was an infringement
of claim 20 ONLY in so far as it in.
Cluded the line shaft casing which
performed three particular functions
and that claim 20 could be held valid
only by limiting it to include con.
Structi0ns in which the line shaft
casing performed dill three functions,
quoting from the decision the fol.
lowing extract
1t seems quite clear that THE IDEAL
OF A PROTECTIVE CASING FOR
THE PUMP SHAFT WITHOUT RES.
TRICTTVE INTERPRETATION WOULD
| CONTAIN NO NOVELTY AND WOULD
NOT BE PATENTABLE, and if this
element in the patent is gwen the
unreStriCtive meaning that its ian
guage admits of, it would destroy
the claim. If so limited, it would
seem that the protective casing in.
tended to be covered by the claim
VS. ne of the kind described in the
,pecifcationS and having the three
functions attributed 10 it by the
specifications, namely ID to exclude
water and deteriouS matter from the
shaft and its bearings; az To provide
means for lubricatlng the bearings
of each section of the shaft from the
top of the well without removing the
apparatus from it; ~ To align the
bearings and the shaft so as to pre-
vent lateral displacement in the well
and keep the shaft in a vertical
position"
The late improved Van Ness pump
is a bearingleSS pump which dipoS'
eS of one of the three functions
necessary as an infringement. Again
the late improved Van Ness pump
with the open line shaft casing elimi
mates The main feature to cause in
fringment.
We quote you all that is now left
of the Layne patent which is the last
half of claim 20 viz"And a line shaft fol
the pump ENTIRELY closed of
from the water in the we'll"
Our bearipglesS open line shaft
casing pump entirely eliminates claim
20,
THE COSTS OF COURT IN ALI
THE ABOVE LITIGATION WERE
ASSESSED TO LAYNE.
Several months ago l notified Mr.
Layne through his Attorneys that il
he considered the late improved Var
Ness pump an infringement of his
patents to bring suit at once to test
out that question Up to the pres
ent time he has failed to do so, thus
showing by implication that he does
not consider the late improved Var
Ness pump to be an infringement OF
his patents.
In reference to the suit against
United Well Works of Stuttgart, Ark.