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

1 F. 328, 17 Blatchf. 531, 1880 U.S. App. LEXIS 2360
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York·Decided March 13, 1880·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] specifically 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] or 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.

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

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

1 F. 328 (Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Dittmar Powder Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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