Home/E.D. New York/Clements Mfg. Co. v. Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co.

Clements Mfg. Co. v. Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co.

1 F. Supp. 384, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1746
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedSeptember 6, 1932
DocketNo. 5233
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 F. Supp. 384 (Clements Mfg. Co. v. Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clements Mfg. Co. v. Eureka Vacuum Cleaner Co., 1 F. Supp. 384, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1746 (E.D.N.Y. 1932).

Opinion

CAMPBELL, District Judge.

This is an action based on the alleged infringement of reissue patent No. 15,627, to George Clements, assignor by direct and mesne assignments of one-half to Clements Manufacturing Company, and one-half to the Hoover Company, for vacuum cleaner, reissued June 12,1923, on application filed April 30, 1923. Original patent No. 1,392,624, dated October 4, 1921, on application filed June 14, 1911.

The title of the plaintiffs is not questioned.

The defendant interposed the following defenses: Noninfringement, intervening rights as to claims added after reissue; invalidity as to the reissue claims, as there was no inadvertence, accident, or mistake, but merely a reissue to broaden claims; invalidity of the reissue patent in toto, as the original patent was not invalid or inoperative, and there was no inadvertence, accident, or mistake; estoppel under the original claims 6 and 7 on the ground of laches in asserting these claims against the defendant, and invalidity over the prior art.

The invention of the patent in suit relates to an improvement in convertible cleaners; the vacuum cleaner being changed from the floor type to the suction hose type by means of a tubular converter letter D.

The patentee in his specification of the reissue patent in suit, describing his invention, says: “My invention relates to improvements in vacuum cleaners, and has for one of its principal objects to provide means for connecting a suction hose directly with the inlet of the pumping chamber such connection causing the nozzle connection between the normal floor nozzle and the inlet to the pump chamber to be disconnected,”

[386]*386The vacuum deader of the patent in suit is of the portable type adapted as shown in Fig. 1 of the patent, to be used as a floor cleaner, or as shown in Fig. 2, to be used with a hose connection for the cleaning of draperies or the like.

' As shown in Fig. 1, the nozzle proper A9 is connected by a passage A, with .the suction chamber A4, and through a port A5 to the fan chamber. In the outer wall of the suction chamber is a second port A°, closed by cap A7, when the machine is used as a floor cleaner.

When it is desired to use the cleaner with the suction hose, as shown in Fig. 2, the cap A7 is removed and the convertible tube D is inserted through the aligned ports A° and A5 and screwed tightly into place; the converter being provided with screw threads D1 for engaging the threaded port A°. The inner end [387]*387D2 of the converter tube extends through the passage A8 and, therefore, when in place, performs the function of shutting off the floor nozzle.

[386]*386 C9jYZ5I

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

Related

B. F. Sturtevant Co. v. Clarage Fan Co.
50 F. Supp. 157 (W.D. Michigan, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 F. Supp. 384, 1932 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clements-mfg-co-v-eureka-vacuum-cleaner-co-nyed-1932.