Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Dittmar Powder Manufacturing Co.

1 F. 328, 17 Blatchf. 531, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2360
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
DecidedMarch 13, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 F. 328 (Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Dittmar Powder Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Dittmar Powder Manufacturing Co., 1 F. 328, 17 Blatchf. 531, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2360 (circtsdny 1880).

Opinion

Blatchford, J.

This is an application for a preliminary injunction, founded on reissued letters patent No. 5,799, granted to the Giant Powder Company, March 17, 1874, the original patent having been granted to Julius Bandmann, as assignee of Alfred Nobel, the inventor, as No. 78,317, May 26, 1868, being the same reissued patent which was before this court in the case of the same plaintiff against Band, and in the case of the same plaintiff against Parker, both of them decided May 5, 1879.

The specific samples of powder complained of were sold by the defendant, the Dittmar Powder Manufacturing Company, through the defendant Carl Dittmar, and are two in number, No. 1 and No. 2. Dr. Hayes testifies that, by analysis, 100 parts by weight of No. 1 contain, nitro-glycerine, 67.64 parts; cellulose, (paper stock,) 16.82; saltpetre, (nitrate of soda,) 15.54; that, by analysis, 100 parts by weight of No. 2 contain, nitro-glycerine, 27.86 parts; sawdust and charcoal, in nearly equal proportions, 5.59; saltpetre, (nitrate of soda,) 66.55; that, in his opinion, the solid ingredients found in each of said analyses constitute together an absorbent substance, which is an equivalent of the infusorial earth specifically mentioned in the plaintiff’s patent; that the powders so examined by him are each a combination of nitro-glycerine, with such absorbent substance in substantially the same manner as the combination of nitro-glycerine and infusorial earth [329]*329specifically mentioned in said patent; that the said solid ingredients have the property of absorbing, and retaining by absorption, nitro-glycerine, and are free from any quality which will cause them to decompose, destroy or injure nitroglycerine; that the nitro-glycerine is combined with them in such proportions as to be retained without liability to separation, by compression or leakage; that the said solid redients are not liable to explode by concussion, as nitro-glycerine is; that the entire combinations constitute, in his opinion, “safety powders,” which can undergo the ordinary shocks of transportation and manipulation without explosion; that the nitroglycerine therein is explosible, in blasting operations, by the means ordinarily employed for exploding nitro-glycerine; that, while the mixture is in the form of a powder, the nitroglycerine remains, in his opinion, so compact and concentrated as to have its original explosive power; and that the cellulose, or paper stock (“pulp,”) and the sawdust, in said mixtures, perform the same function as charcoal, or carbon, both as to the absorption of the nitro-glycerine, and as to combustion by the heat of the explosion of the nitro-glycerine, and they perform it in the same way, and they perform no other function. In the Rand case the defendants’ powder contained, nitro-glycerine, 34.71 parts; nitrate of potash, 52.68 parts; sulphur, 5.84 parts; woody fiber, charcoal and resin, in nearly equal proportions, 5.77 parts. In the Parker case the defendants’ powder contained, nitrate of soda, 56 parts; charcoal, 14 parts; nitro-glycerine, 30 parts. In the Goodyear case, before Judge Shepley, the defendants’ powder contained, nitro-glycerine, 32.60 parts; nitrate of soda, 49.46 parts; charcoal, 9.03 parts; sulphur, 8.31 parts. All of these powders were held to be infringements of the plaintiff’s patent. What Dr. Hayes testifies, as above set forth, in regard to the powders in the present case, shows that they must, for the reasons given in the Rand, Parker and Goodyear cases, be held to be infringements of said patent, unless certain matters presented by the defendants in this case shall be sufficient to lead to a different conclusion.

The defendants contend that the only powder they make [330]*330or sell is one called “ Dualin," made in accordance with a patent granted to the defendant Dittmar January 18, 1870. They urge the following propositions: (1.) That, in view of matters now presented, the plaintiff’s reissued patent, in omitting the word “inexplosive,” in discarding the concentration feature of the original patent, and in altering and adding other clauses not contained in the original patent, is broader than the original and void. (2.) That, on the evidence now presented, the Dittmar patent is the first valid and subsisting patent for nitro-glycerine safety powder combinations, composed of nitro-glycerine absorbed in some combustible or explosive, as distinguished from inexplosive substance, and that the plaintiff’s reissue should be limited strictly to what is contained within the plain reading of the description of the original patent. (3.) That Dittmar was •the original and first inventor of the mixture of nitro-glycerine with some porous solid, as distinguished from fluid or liquid substance, in such proportions as to render the resulting compound a powder safe against the usual shocks of transportation and use, and, therefore, the original and first inventor of the compositions claimed in Nobel’s original patent and in the plaintiff’s reissue; that Nobel fraudulently and surreptitiously purloined his invention, and that the original and the reissue are void. (4.) That the conduct of the plaintiff and its proceedings heretofore, with respect to its litigations and to Dittmar, have not been such as to justify the application for an injunction at this stage of the suit.

The question of the difference between the original and the reissue in respect to the concentration feature, and in the omission from the reissue of the word “inexplosive, ” found in ■the original, in reference to the absorbent substance, was considered and passed upon in the decision of this court in the Band case favorably to the plaintiff, and the latter point was considered and passed upon in the' same way by Judge ■Shepley in the Goodyear case. In the present case it is contended for the defendants that extrinsic evidence, not in the former cases, is introduced, as to the state of the art of man■facturing explosive compounds in 1867 and 1868, and as to [331]*331the use of the word “inexplosive” in that art, which has the effect of showing that the word “inexplosive” was used in the original patent, No. 78,317, in its literal and ordinary sense, and not in ilie special sense of a substance not liable to explode by accidental concussion. Reference is made to Nobel’s provisional English specification, filed May 7, 1867, which speaks of mixing nitro-glyeerine with “porous, inexplosive substances, such, for instance, as charcoal and silica,” and to his full English specification, filed March 6, 1867, (both of such specifications pertaining to a patent for an invention communicated by Nobel, dated May 7, 1867,) which speaks of causing nitro-glyeerine to be “absorbed in porous, inoxplosive substances, such as charcoal, paper, silica, or similar materials, whereby it is converted into a powder which I call dynamite or Nobel’s safety powder.” Reference is also made to the fact that the specification of No. 78,317 states that “porous charcoal has also a considerable absorbent capacity, but it has the defect of being itself a combustible material.” Reference is also made to the specification oí a patent granted by the United States to the plaintiff and the Giant Powder Company, No.

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

Related

Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Mowbray
2 F. Cas. 138 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 F. 328, 17 Blatchf. 531, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-giant-powder-co-v-dittmar-powder-manufacturing-co-circtsdny-1880.