Fulton County tribune. (Wauseon, Ohio) 1883-1925, 1916-03-03
HINMAN WIN IN
BIG PATENT SUIT
GIVEN JUDGMENT WITH COSTS
Hinman Milking Machine Company of
Oneida Awarded Damages in U. s.
District Court Against the Visible
Mixer Company for infringement
--Watertown Concern Restrained
Judge Rays Decision.

Judge George W. Ray Of the Uni
ted States District Court has Just
handed down decision in the action
brought by the Hinman Milking Ma
chine company OF Oneida against the
Visible Mixer company OF Water
town for infringement Of patent, in
which the court directs an injunction
and judgment against the WATERFOWL
concern with full costs and an ac-
counting to fix damages.
The decision is a notable victory
for the Hinman Milking Machine
company, whose machines. which
have gained worldwide reputation,
have been initiated and infrineed in
various parts of the country because
OF their sound basic principles and
wonderful success.
The action was brought by the
Hinman Milking Machine company to
restrain the Watertown company
from committing further infringe
ments on the complaints Hin
man's) patent and for damages for
the refringements already committed.
This case was tried in United States
District Court at Syracuse, August
Slst and September 1st and I'd, 1916.
Attorney Ralph H. Woolver Of this
city appeared for the Hinman Milk
ing Machine company with Attorneys
Fl. p. Dennison and K. A. Thompson
ms counsel. The Visible Mixer COM
pany was represented by ATTORNEYS
John Conbov of Watertown and Fred
Gerlach Of Chicago.
Absolute infringement.
Judge Ray, in very exhaustive
oninion, holds that the Hinman pat
ent Is valid in every respect and also
that the device manufactured and
sold by the Visible Mixer company
Is an absolute infringement Of the
Hinman patent. The court directs
that the Watertown company be re-
strained from making or selling any
more milking machines similar to
those heretofore made and sold by
them, and also grants the request of
the Hinman company for an account
ing for the purpose of fixing the
amount Of damages sustained by the
Humans by reason Of the illegal and
infringing acts Of the Watertown
concern.
The Judgment also gives the Hin
man company full costs of the action
which alone viii foot up to a consid-
cradle sum.
The patent in the suit dated Feb.
3, 1915, for a COW milking machine.
is a reissue of U. s. letters patent No
1,097 sos, dated May 26, 1914. on
application filed July 26, 1912. The
application for the reissue was filed
Dec. II, 1914, by Arthur ". and
Ralph L. Hinman. the patentees.
The Defense.
The principal claims of the defend
ant, the Visible Mixer Company. and
Judge Rays findings on each defense
are az follows:
First. The claims are either who'll
iy or substantially anticipated by the
prior art patents.
Second. Inasmuch as the relied
upon claims define nothing more
than old and well-known details,
shown to have been old and we'll
known by many prior patents, ap-
piled to the device shown in plain
tiff's prior patent, No. 9O7 ,236. sew
eral thousand Of which went into sue
cessful use, said claims do not define
q patentable invention.
Third. The relied-upon claims
added to the reissue are for a differ
ent invention from that intended to
be claimed by the original patent,
and. therefore, void under the law.
Fourth. The original patent was
not imperative OF invalid, and there
being no lawful ground for reissue
the reissue is void; and
Fifth. Defendants device does
not infringe.
Judge Rays Findings and Answers
First. The claims are not antici-
pated.
Second. Patentable invention 1,
disclosed.
Third. Il contains no new mat.
ter" within the meaning Of the stat
ute and decisions not disclosed in ths
original patent or application upor
which IL was issued.
Fourth. The reissued letters pat.
ent sued upon were applied for in du,
time and duly reissued.
Fifth. Infringement is clearl,
shown. The complainants (Hin
CONTINUED on page six)