Arrow Electric Co. v. Gaynor Electric Co.

30 F.2d 956, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1017
CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedFebruary 16, 1929
DocketNo. 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 30 F.2d 956 (Arrow Electric Co. v. Gaynor Electric Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Arrow Electric Co. v. Gaynor Electric Co., 30 F.2d 956, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1017 (D. Conn. 1929).

Opinion

THOMAS, District Judge.

The bill in this case charges the defendants with infringement of three patents issued to the plaintiff as assignee of two of its employés, A. H. Nero and W. H. Harrington. All three patents were granted July 6, 1926— the first to Nero, No. 1,591,772, the second to Nero, No. 1,591,773 and the third to Harrington, No. 1,591,707 — and all are for improvement in flush attachment plug receptacles.

The defendants are the Gaynor Electric Company, a Connecticut corporation engaged in business in Bridgeport, and three Gaynor brothers. Arthur C. is only a salaried employé of the defendant corporation. He is neither a stockholder, director, nor officer of the company. The other two brothers are officers and directors of the corporation defendant. There is no proof showing the insolvency of the corporation defendant, nor does it appear that the individual defendants, or any of them, have resorted to the corporate form of doing business for the purpose of escaping individual liability. Inasmuch as an injunction can he enforced against every person connected with the corporation without making any individual a defendant to an action which seeks an injunction, and the plaintiff not having made a case sufficient to bring the individual defendants within the rule stated in Hitchcock v. American Plate Glass Co. (C. C. A.) 259 F. 948, 952, the bill of complaint as to them is dismissed.

The defendants admit that the three-patents in suit are valid, but infringement is denied.

All three patents relate to flush attachment plug receptacles; that is to say, electric receptacles to be mounted on a base board of a room o-r elsewhere with the surface of the receptacle flush with the face of the base hoard or other wall piece, and having openings in the face of the receptacle to receive an attachment plug with cord connecting to an electric device such as a lamp,, toaster, heater, vacuum cleaner, etc.

The second Nero patent, No. 1,591,773, is alleged to be for an improvement upon the device described in the first Nero patent, No. 1,591,772, and the Harrington patent is alleged to be for an improvement upon the devices of the two Nero patents.

Plaintiff relies upon claims 1 and 8 of the first Nero- patent, claims 3 and 4 of the second Nero patent, and claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 8 of the Harrington patent.

These claims read as follows:

Nero, No. 1,591,772, claim 1: “An attachment plug receptacle comprising a one-piece insulating body recessed from its lower face to afford a plurality of contact chambers and apertured in its outer face to form blade-guide passages opening to said' contact chambers, jack-receiving contacts of opposite. polarity respectively housed within said chambers in register with said guide [957]*957passages, in combination with, insulating sheet material underlying said contacts of opposite polarity, and a sheet metal plate secured to the body and underlying said insulating sheet material and cooperating with the latter to support said contacts in said chambers together with receptacle mounting means metallically connected with said underlying plate.”

Claim 8: “An attachment plug receptacle comprising a one-piece insulating body recessed in its lower face to afford a pair of contact-receiving chambers and aportured in its upper face in register with said recesses to afford blade guide passageways, a pair of jack-receiving contacts of opposite polarity housed within the said recesses, and in register with the blade guide apertures, a supporting plate underlying said contacts and common thereto, means for insulating said plate from said contacts, and means for securing said plate to said body in contact-supporting position, together with receptacle mounting means metallically connected to said plate-securing means.”

Nero, No. 1,591,773, claim 3: “An attachment plug receptacle, comprising an insulating body, jack-receiving contacts, and a receptacle-carrying strap metal yoke member extending below the receptacle body to afford a support for certain of said contacts, together with means for insulating said yoke from the contacts.”

Claim 4: “An attachment ping receptacle, comprising an insulating body recessed from its lower face to form contact chambers, jaek-reeeiving contacts extending into said chambers from the lower face of the body, and a receptacle-carrying strap metal yoke-extending beneath said body and serving to support said contacts in position in said chambers, together with means for insulating said yoke from said contacts.”

Harrington, No. 3,591,707, claim 1: “An attachment plug receptacle comprising a molded insulating body recessed from its lower face to afford a contact chamber, a contact entering said chamber from said lower face of the body, and having an associated wire terminal lying' against a side of said body, sheet insulation underlying said contact, means for securing’ said contact in position, and receptacle supporting means engaged by said securing means.”

Claim 3: “An attachment plug receptacle comprising an insulating body recessed from its lower face to afford a contact chamber with lateral channel opening to said contact chamber, said body being pierced from its outer face to afford a guideway for a jack entering said chamber, in combination with a contact member adapted to enter said chamber from the back of the body, an associated wire terminal adapted to lie against the side of the body member, a binding screw carried by said wire terminal and accommodated in said lateral' channel in the body during the insertion of the contact into said chamber, sheet insulation underlying said contact in assembled position, and means for securing said sheet insulation to the base to support the contact in said chamber.”

Claim 4: “An attachment plug receptacle comprising an insulating body recessed from its lower face to afford a contact chamber with lateral channel opening to said contact chamber, said body being pierced from its outer face to afford >a guideway for a jack entering said chamber, in combination with a contact member adapted to enter said chamber from the back of the body, an associated wire terminal adapted to lie against the side of the body member a binding screw carried by said wire terminal and accommodated in said lateral channel in the body during the insertion of the contact into said chamber, sheet insulation underlying said, contact in assembled position, together with a sheet metal member arranged beneath the' receptacle body and sheet insulation and secured to the body to support said contact brush and wire terminal in assembled position.”

Claim 5: “An attachment plug receptacle comprising an insulating body recessed from its lower face to afford contact receiving chambers, and pierced from its outer face to afford guideways leading to said chambers, contacts atranged below the body of the receptacle and projecting into said chambers, associated wire terminals extending from said contacts to exposed position at the side of the receptacle body, in combination with a metallic strap passing beneath the receptacle body and contact chambers, a sheet of insulation separating said strap from the contacts arranged in said chambers, and means for permanently attaching said strap to the insulating body, said strap affording means for supporting the contacts in their respective chambers and also means for supporting the receptacle body in an appropriate location.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 F.2d 956, 1929 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arrow-electric-co-v-gaynor-electric-co-ctd-1929.