Case Name: WILSON v. UNION TOOL CO.; SAME v. LUCEY MFG. CORPORATION
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1921-04-15
Citations: 275 F. 624
Docket Number: Nos. E-99, E-100
Parties: WILSON v. UNION TOOL CO. SAME v. LUCEY MFG. CORPORATION.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 275
Pages: 624–632

Head Matter:
WILSON v. UNION TOOL CO. SAME v. LUCEY MFG. CORPORATION.
(District Court, S. D. California, S. D.
April 15, 1921.
On Rehearing, November 18, 1921.)
Nos. E-99, E-100.
1. Pleading <3=380—Attempt will be made to limit testimony to • points in controversy.
In view of the growing mass of litigation, the court will use every reasonable means to simplify and lessen the issues in any ease, and to narrow them to the subsisting points of controversy, and will endeavor to confine the testimony introduced to material and relevant matters.
2. Patents <3=310(1, 7)—Parties required to state exact rights claimed and interference -therewith.
In patent cases the plaintiff will be required to state the precise right asserted by him, and the precise trespass upon that right alleged to have been committed by the defendant, and the defendant, who sets up matters of anticipation or the like, will be required to state the precise nature of the.right asserted by him, but neither will be required to state reasons for Ms attitude.
3. Equity <3=269—Parties allowed to amend claims to conform to new information.
The requirement of the court that the parties shall state the issues in controversy with precision will not be permitted to result in injustice, and if either party acquires information subsequently justifying or requiring the assertion of a different or broader claim, he will be permitted, if he acts with due promptness, to amend his claim.
ÍSxosFor other oases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
4. Patents 3=310(1, 7)—Parties required to giv® particulars a.s to exact claims, but not those calling for argument.
In suits for the infringement of a patent, the respective parties will be required to give particulars asked for as to the claims infringed, the novel elements therein, the alleged infringing devices, and the equivalents, but will not be required to give particulars as to the respects in which the claimed infringement or anticipation consists, which calls for argument only.
On Rehearing.
5. Patents 3=202—Defendant not required to answer interrogatories which might result in “penalty.” .
. In suit for infringement of a patent, defendant, under equity rule ¡>8 (198 Fed. xxxiv, 115 O. O. A. xxxiv), is not required to answer interrogatories, if the answer may eventuate in the imposition of a “penalty,” the chancery practice relative to bill of discovery being followed, so that rule that person may be compelled to give evidence against himself where action is not penal is not applicable, and the treble damages to which a defendant, decreed guilty of infringing a patent, may be subjected, being imposed as smart money or punishment in excess of actual compensation awarded to plaintiff, are in the nature of a penalty within the rule.
In Equity. Separate suits by Ebhu C. Wilson against the Union Tool Company and against th* Eucey Manufacturing Corporation for infringement of patents. On motions by both plaintiff and defendants for fuller statements of particulars and on objections to interrogatories propounded to defendants.
Motions for further particulars granted as to some Items, and refused as to others, and objections to interrogatories sustained.
Defendants’ motion for further particulars embraced the following specific requests:
I. “Which of the claims of letters patent Nos. 1,314,996 and 1,341,957 in suit are alleged to be infringed by defendant.”
II. “Which of the numerous devices manufactured and sold by defendant are alleged to infringe upon the letters patent in suit, and in that behalf that plaintiff identify such device or devices by reference to defendant’s catalogue and catalogue number of the same.”
III. “Precisely what plaintiff asserts or claims is new and patentable in each of the claims of the patents in suit charged to be infringed, and what plaintiff asserts each of such claims covers.”
IV. “Precisely where, in defendant’s alleged infringing device or devices, plaintiff asserts there is found the features set forth as new and patentable in response to paragraph III hereof, and in .that connection that plaintiff:
“(a) Point out by reference characters applied to a drawing or cut of defendant’s alleged infringing device or devices the elements of each of the claims of the patents in suit alleged to be infringed.
“(b) Point out by reference characters applied to a drawing or cut of defendant’s alleged infringing device or devices the features set forth as new and patentable in response to paragraph XIT hereof.”
V. “By a reference character applied to Figure 3 of patent No. 3,314,996 point, out precisely wliat part of the device illustrated in the drawing of said patent plaintiff assej’ts. corresponds to ‘the swinging end’ set forth in the last clause of claim 4 of said patent.”
VT. “By a reference character applied to a drawing or cut of defendant’s alleged infringing device or devices point out precisely what part of the same plaintiff asserts corresponds to ‘the swinging end’ set forth in the last clause of claim 4 of patent No. 1,314,996.”
VII. “The particular cuts, illustrations, and printed matter used in complainant’s circulars and advertisements and referred to in paragraph VIII of the bill of complaint herein as having been copied by defendant, and in that connection that plaintiff produce and file specimens of the particular circulars and advertisements containing such cuts, illustrations, and printed matter.”
<gs»For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
VIII. “The particular cuts, illustrations, and printed matter published by defendant and referred to in paragraph VIII of the bill of complaint herein, as copying the cuts, illustrations, and printed matter of plaintiff, produced in response to paragraph VII hereof, and state just wherein plaintiff asserts defendant’s said cuts, illustrations, and printed matter are copies of or resemble those of plaintiff, and when and where plaintiff asserts defendant published and distributed each of the same.”
Plaintiff’s requests for further particulars were as follows:
I. “Which of the numerous patents pleaded by reference in paragraphs VIII and IX of defendant’s answer heretofore filed, and which claims thereof, the defendant will rely upon at the trial of this cause.”
II. “In what respects each of the aforesaid patents upon which defendant will rely, as set forth in its response to paragraph I hereof, discloses any of the elements or combinations of elements described in plaintiff’s United States letters patent Nos. 1,314,996 and 1,341,957.”
III. “In what respects the novelty and invention of the devices shown and described in plaintiff’s United States letters patent Nos. 1,314,996 and 1,341,957 are negatived by the features described and contained in the said claims of the said patents set forth in response to paragraph I hereof.”
IV. “What particular printed matter or illustrations, contained within the indicated pages of the price book and three catalogues referred to in subdivision (b) of paragraph IX of the defendant’s answer heret.ofore filed is alleged to negative the invention and novelty of the devices shown and. described in plaintiff’s said letters patent.”
V. “In what respects the novelty and invention of the devices shown and described in plaintiff’s said United States letters patent Nos. 1,314,996 and 1,341,957 are negatived by the printed descriptions or illustrations referred to in the aforesaid price book and three catalogues mentioned in subdivision (b) of paragraph IX of the defendant’s answer heretofore filed.”
VI. “What elements or combinations of elements described and claimed in plaintiff’s aforesaid letters patent are alleged by the defendant to be described or illustrated or shown within the indicated pages of the aforesaid price book and three catalogues referred to in subdivision (b) of paragraph IX of the defendant’s answer heretofore filed.”
Plaintiff’s interrogatories propounded to defendants covered a variety of special subjects, but the following fairly illustrates their general nature and tenor:
III. “Does the defendant corporation now manufacture, use or sell well easing elevators containing the following elements or substitutes for any thereof, or has it done so at any time since September 2, 1919:
“(a) Two relatively movable clamping and holding members, having a hinge connection and capable of being opened or closed at such hinge connection, when a pipe is between same.
“(b) Suspension means connected with one only of the clamping members.
“(c) Securing means whereby said members are held together in working relation.
“(d) Said member with which said suspension means are connected being provided with an abutment upon which is seated the swinging end of the other clamping member.”
G. Benton Wilson, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Frederick S. Lyon and Leonard S. Lyon, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.

Opinion:
BLEDSOE, District Judge
(after stating facts as above). In these cases, involving the same patents, motions for a further and fuller statement of particulars have been made, both by plaintiff and the re spective defendants, and interrogatories have been propounded 'ey the plaintiff, pursuant to equity rule 58 (198 Fed. xxxiv, 115 C. C. A. xxxiv), and to all of those objection is made.
j 1 j Without going into detail in. the premises, in accordance with the views heretofore expressed by tlie court at a previous argument of ibese matters, this court is disposed to accept tlie suggestions indulged in by Judge Augustus N. Hand of the Southern District of New York, contained in McLeod Tire, Corp. v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 268 Fed. 205, 206. It is there said:
"It has been the practice in this district to attempt to simplify the issues and limit the testimony necessary at the trial by allowing1 inspection and compelling answer to interroga torios in patent eases very liberally. We have stopped little short of requiring almost everything except the names of witnesses and such information as would enable the int errogator to bring forward untruthful testimony to meet the evidence of his adversary."
In the presence of the great mass of accumulated and growing litigation with which this court is now burdened, I am determined to use every reasonable and just means at my command to simplify and lessen the issues in any controversy demanding my consideration and adjudication. In that spirit and in all cases, I will make effort to confine the testimony to be adduced to those matters which are material and relevant and those only, and in addition will seek to narrow and limit the. issues so that only the real subsisting points of controversy-will be exhibited.
In this wise, the plaintiff, in patent cases, for instance, will he required to state the precise right asserted by him and the precise trespass upon that right alleged to have been committed by the defendant; the defendant on his part, setting up matters o f anticipation or the like, will be required to state the precise nature of the right thus asserted by him which is claimed to amount to a defense, etc. This will not require that either party shall write a brief, or anything in the nature of a brief. It docs not mean the giving or stating of reasons for the attitude assumed or the right claimed, it simply means that there shall be a definite, succinct, and precise assertion of the thing that is relied on, either in support of claimed relief or by way of defense. I think such a course of procedure will conduce to added clarity in the statement and understanding of the issues involved, and will bring about a much hoped for economy in the matter of effort, time, and money. Litigation should not only be conducted with all due celerity; it ought to be conducted as cheaply as possible, in order that relief, to whomsoever due, may be accorded with as little cost, both to the individual and to tlie community, as the reasonable necessities of the case may require. These views I think are supported in spirit by the conclusions announced by Judge (now Mr. Justice) Clarke, in Coulston v. Franke Steel Range Co. (D. C.) 221 Fed. 669, by Judge Learned Hand, in Grand Rapids Show Case Co. v. Straus (D. C.) 229 Fed. 199 and by Judge Mayer, in Dick Co. v. Underwood Typewriter Co. (D. C.) 235 Fed 300.
It is obvious, of course, that this program may not be given, any effective enforcement, except in virtue of the cordial co-operation of the bar. This the court expects and has a right to receive. Much of the criticism indulged in against the courts arises because of the expensive and long drawn out course that litigation all too frequently has to take. This court is determined that as little as possible of this criticism shall be laid at the door of the court itself. It will be true, of course, that the court itself cannot frame or specify the issues, and it must rely upon the disposition -of counsel to accommodate itself to the attitude of the court, for a proper realization of the ultimate end in view.
In this behalf, too, it ought not to require special mention that, in the matter of more sharply defining the issues in a controversy, the court will at no time lend countenance to the doing of anything that will result in injustice. Its aim is to do justice in the premises, and it will not be led hastily, by its ambition in that behalf, to do that which will result in injustice in any instance. For example: Any party who may have been limited by a statement of a particular issue or claim upon which he relies, and who for any reason acquires information subsequently justifying or requiring the assertion of a different or broader claim, will be permitted, acting with due promptness, to amend his claim so made or previously stated.
In conformity with these views, in E-99, the plaintiff will be required, in response to defendants' motion for further particulars, to make answer to particulars specified in paragraphs 1, 2, the first portion of paragraph 3, paragraph 4 with respect both to clauses (a) and (b), paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and the first part of paragraph 8. The latter part of paragraph 3 calls merely for argument on the part of plaintiff, and is not proper to be elicited at this time. The latter part of paragraph 8 is also argument, or mere descent into unnecessary detail. The same ruling, for the same reasons, will apply to the request for further particulars made of plaintiff in E-100. The motion of plaintiff for further particulars to be stated by defendants will he granted as to paragraphs 1, 2, 4, and 6 in each of the cases. Paragraphs 3 and 5 call for argument only, and not such statement of facts as the court is persuaded plaintiff is entitled to.
Objection is urged on various grounds against the interrogatories propounded by plaintiff. It seems to be the rule, supported by reason and authority, that unless plaintiff has specifically waived such penalty, a defendant may not be required to answer interrogatories, if such answer will or may eventuate in the imposition of a penalty by way of treble damages. Speidel Co. v. Barstow Co. (D. C.) 232 Fed. 617. In addition, the questions propounded by the plaintiff to the defendants call for conclusions, rather than facts.
In consequence, the objections to the interrogatories submitted are sustained.