Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/298/415/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:34:24+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 298 › Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co.
Bassick Manufacturing Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co.
1. Claims 1, 2, 3,4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 of Gullborg Patent No. 1,307,734, for a means of lubricating metal bearings, particularly those of automobiles, claimed a combination of (1) a type of pin fitting; (2) a grease gun; (3) a connecting hose, and (4) a type of coupler. The only novel feature of the combination was in the construction of the coupler, which, utilizing a perforated sealing disk mounted to reciprocate in the bore of the coupler with means for yieldingly pressing the disk against the end of the pin fitting, operates upon uncoupling to produce a suction effect which removes excess lubricant from the point of contact of the two members. Held, to that extent, the claims disclose novelty and invention. P. 298 U. S. 420.
2. The finding of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the accused grease gun of respondent (in No. 23) lacked the only novel feature of the Gullborg patented combination, and that it therefore did not infringe, sustained. P. 298 U. S. 422.
3. Claims 14 and 15 of Gullborg Patent, No. 1,307,734, for a combination of the type of pin fitting covered by Gullborg Patent, No. 1,307,733, with a grease gun of any type, held not contributorily infringed either (1) by the sale of pin fittings of a type not covered by Patent No. 1,307,733, even though a grease gun of the "suction effect" type could be used therewith, or (2) by the sale of grease guns which could be used with the patented pin fitting but which did not embody the improved coupler evidenced by the patent in suit. Pp. 298 U. S. 424-425.
4. A patentee cannot, by improving one element of an old combination whose construction and operation is otherwise unchanged, in effect repatent the old combination by reclaiming it with the improved element substituted for the old element. P. 298 U. S. 425.
Certiorari, 295 U.S. 726, to review judgments in two cases from different circuits, involving questions of the validity and infringement of a patent. The cases are stated in the opinion.
perforation in the washer will draw with it any grease which would otherwise adhere about the orifices of the fitting and the coupling.
"2. The combination with a hollow coupling member having a pin projecting from one side thereof and a spring-pressed closure, of a pump, a discharge conduit having one end secured to the outlet of said pump, a second hollow coupling member for receiving the closed end of said first named coupling member secured to the other end of said conduit and provided with a bayonet slot adapted to co-act with said pin, a perforated sealing disk mounted to reciprocate in the bore of said coupling member, means for yieldingly urging said sealing disk against the closed end of said first named coupling member, and means for limiting the movement of said sealing disk in the direction of said second coupling member."
signifies merely some sort of shoulder at the orifice of the coupler to prevent the spring from forcing the disk out of the end of the bore).
Nothing is said in specification or claims concerning the release of the high pressure in the gun before uncoupling, but evidently this must be done if the movement of the perforated disk is to create a vacuum. The petitioner concedes that, if the high pressure is maintained, the grease packed behind the washer will move forward with it and not only prevent the creation of a vacuum back of the washer, but continue to exude from the coupler through the perforation in the washer. It is explained that the pressure may be released by a slight retraction of the plunger in the grease gun so as to permit the spring and washer to perform their function of creating a suction when the pin and coupler are disengaged.
Claims 1 to 6, inclusive, and 8 and 10, have been repeatedly held valid, but the invention has generally been limited to the novel means whereby, upon the uncoupling of the gun from the pin fitting, a suction is produced which removes excess lubricant from the point of contact of the two members. Although, in the instant cases, the validity of the claims is denied, we think they disclose novelty and invention to the extent indicated.
"15. The combination with a grease cup comprising a tubular member having a closure seat, a closure, a pin extending through said tubular member and from both sides thereof, and a spring confined between said pin and closure, and tending to hold said closure on its seat, of a grease pump having a discharge conduit, and means co-acting with the ends of said pin for detachably connecting the discharge end of said conduit with said grease cup."
No. 1,307,733, with any grease pump having a bayonet type coupler. Nothing in the claim discloses the cup shaped reciprocating disk yieldingly pressed forward against the closure of the pin fitting. Grease guns having such a bayonet coupling were old in the art. The question is whether claims 14 and 15, unless restricted to the combination of a grease gun and coupler and a pin fitting such as are described in the specifications of the patent, are void as attempting to extend the monopoly of Gullborg's patent No. 1,307,733, to exclude the use therewith of any grease gun except one having the suction device of the patent in suit.
With this background, we pass to consideration of the specific cases presented.
exit of which is connected to a pipe discharging into the chamber of a plunger-operated pump and a hose attached at the base of the pump chamber terminating in a coupling device like that of the Gullborg patent. The method of operation is that, when the plunger is retracted beyond the orifice of the supply pipe, grease is forced into the pump chamber by the air pressure in the receptacle. By the downward stroke of the plunger, the entrance to the pump-chamber is closed and the grease therein forced into the hose and through the coupling and pin fitting to the bearing. By successive strokes, a very high pressure can be built up in the hose. The Circuit Court of Appeals found, and we think correctly, that, with this arrangement, it was impossible to release the pressure in the grease line between the pump and the bearing before uncoupling the hose from the pin fitting so as to permit the spring to force the disk forward in the bore of the coupler and create a suction as in Gullborg's patent, and that the accused device was subject to the very exudation of grease at the point of union which Gullborg's invention was intended to obviate. It therefore held that the accused grease gun lacked the only novel feature of the patented combination.
The decision went upon a question of fact. The petitioner offered no evidence to prove that the accused device operated to produce the suction effect claimed in the patent, but relied upon the physical exhibits consisting of its own and the respondent's apparatus and upon ocular demonstrations of their operation. The respondent introduced evidence to show the absence of the suction effect in its device, and combatted the inference sought to be drawn from the physical operation of the two exhibits. We are satisfied that the Circuit Court of Appeals was correct in its decision that the accused device did not embody the novel feature claimed in the patent.
As respects claims 14 and 15, which are for a combination of the pin fitting covered by Gullborg's patent No. 1,307,733 with a grease gun and coupler of any type, the Court of Appeals held that these must be read as claiming a combination of the patented pin fitting and a gun with the coupling device described in the specifications and having the suction effect set forth in the other claims, or must be held void as unlawful attempts to extend the monopoly of the pin fitting which is described in patent 1,307,733. The court sustained these claims by restricting their scope to conform to the other claims based on the suction effect, and held they were not infringed by the respondent's apparatus. We do not understand the petitioner to seek a reversal of this holding. Its petition for certiorari and the assignments of error are bare of any attack upon this portion of the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. These claims, however, are drawn in question in No. 31 and may more properly be discussed in that connection.
In this case, the respondent, as owner of the Gullborg patent No. 1,307,734, sued the petitioners, who neither made nor sold pin fittings of the type covered by Gullborg's patent No. 1,307,733 nor grease pumps or guns having the coupler construction of those described and claimed in the patent in suit. But the petitioners did sell pin fittings of a type with which a grease gun of the description of Gullborg's could be used, and grease guns having a bayonet slotted coupler, which could be used either with the pin fittings of Gullborg's patent No. 1,307,733 or with others not covered thereby. These sales were charged to be contributory infringements of patent No. 1,307,734. The District Court so held, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
of an old unpatented type having couplers of a different construction from that disclosed in the patent. There is no assertion that they produce the suction effect of Gullborg's invention. The petitioners' pin fittings are not of the type described in Gullborg's patent No. 1,307,733.
The proofs establish that the prior art embraced the use in combination of a grease gun composed of a chamber or pump, a hose, a hose-coupler, and a spring-closed fitting, the coupling being of the pin and slot or bayonet type. The respondent's position is, nevertheless, that if the petitioners furnish a gun, a part of this old unpatented and unpatentable combination, for use with the patented pin fitting of Gullborg's No. 1,307,733, they contributorily infringe claims 14 and 15 of the patent in suit because those claims describe the combination of any grease gun with the patented pin fittings. Again, the respondent says that, as pin fittings made in accordance with the prior art, but susceptible of use with a gun covered by the patent in suit, were sold by petitioners, these sales constituted contributory infringements of all the claims of he patent.
Leeds & Catlin Co. v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U. S. 301, 213 U. S. 325, on which the respondent relies, is not in point. There, the patent was a pioneer patent, and the combination was of elements which were novel and neither of which possessed utility without the other. Each element was necessary to the operation of the other. The invention did not, as here, consist of the mere improvement of one element of an old combination.
We are of the opinion that the owner of the patents cannot extend the monopoly of its patent for a pin fitting to preclude the use therewith of any grease gun not embodying the improvement in the coupling device evidenced by the patent in suit, and cannot extend the monopoly of the combination patent in suit to prevent the use of a pin fitting which does not infringe the fitting patent, 1,307,733, with a gun having a coupler such as that claimed in the patent in suit.
In No. 23, the decree is affirmed. In No. 31, the decree is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
* Together with No. 31, Rogers et al. v. Alemite Corporation. Certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Hollingshead Co. v. Bassick Mfg. Co., 73 F.2d 543.
Rogers v. Alemite Corp., 74 F.2d 1019.
Many district court decisions are unreported. Reported decisions in district and circuit courts of appeal are: Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Auto Equipment Co., 13 F.2d 463; Lyman Mfg. Co. v. Bassick Mfg. Co., 18 F. 2d 29; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Standard Products Mfg. Co., 19 F.2d 937; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Larkin Automotive Parts Co., 19 F.2d 939; Larkin Automotive Parts Co., 19 F.2d 944; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Ready Auto Supply Co., Inc., 22 F.2d 331; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. C.P. Rogers & Co., 26 F.2d 724; Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Hi-Pressure Sales Co., Inc., 33 F.2d 912; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. Adams Grease Gun Corp., 39 F.2d 904; 52 F. 2d 36; Bassick Mfg. Co. v. United Grease Gun Corp., 40 F.2d 549; Alemite Corp. v. Lubrair Corp., 62 F.2d 899.
Edison Electric Light Co. v. Peninsular Light, P. & H. Co., 101 F. 831; Heald v. Rice, 104 U. S. 737, 104 U. S. 755; Underwood v. Gerber, 149 U. S. 224, 149 U. S. 227, 149 U. S. 229; Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapper Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425, 152 U. S. 431-432; Carbice Corp. v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U. S. 27, 283 U. S. 31-32; Wagner Typewriter Co. v. F. S. Webster Co., 144 F. 405, 409; Langan v. Warren Axe & Tool Co., 184 F. 720; Harvey Hubbell, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 267 F. 564; Troy Wagon Works Co. v. Ohio Trailer Co., 274 F. 612; General Electric Co. v. Ohio Brass Co., 277 F. 917; Radio Corp. v. Lord, 28 F. 2d 257; Wall Pump & C. Co. v. Gardner Governor Co., 28 F.2d 334.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.