Case Name: Atwood v. Richmond
Court: United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1891-08-10
Citations: 47 F. 219
Docket Number: 
Parties: Atwood v. Richmond.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 47
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Atwood v. Richmond.
(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.
August 10, 1891.)
Patents for Inventions — Box-Hinge—Novelty—Utility.
Letters patent No. 378,861, issued March 6, 1888, to Benjamin T. At wood, Sor a duplex box-hinge, to be placed inside the box, and consisting oí two flanges jointed to a connecting plate, bsnt at right angles at distances from the joints equal to the thickness of the side and cover of the box, so that, whon applied, a smooth face, flush with the outer surface of the box, is presented, and the cover, whon open, turns completely over, and rests against the side, is valid as to novelty, utility, and prior use and discovery, and is infringed by a box-hinge which is its substantial counterpart.
In Equity. Bill by Benjamin T. Atwood against Charles C. Richmond to enjoin an infringement of a patent, and for an account.
P. E. Tucker, for complainant.
Fish, Richardson & Storrow, for defendant.

Opinion:
Nelson, J.
The plaintiff's patent, No. 378,861, dated March 6, 1888, is for an improved box-hinge. The hinge is of the duplex variety, and is designed to be applied to the inside of a box. The invention consists of two flanges jointed to a connecting plate, with the flanges bent at right angles, at distances from the joints corresponding with the thickness of the side and cover of the box. When applied, the hinge presents a smooth face, flush with the outer surface of the box, without projections, and permits the cover, when open, to turn completely over, and rest against the side of the box. The connecting plate also serves as a bearing for the cover when shut Upon the evidence before the court there can be no doubt whatever that, as respects novelty, utility, and invention, and as respects any prior use or discovery by the defendant or others, the plaintiff's patent is perfectly valid, and that the defendant's hinge is substantially a counterpart of the plaintiff's hinge, and a palpable infringement of his patent. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to a decree for an injunction and for an account, and it is ordered accordingly.