Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co.

148 F. 622, 78 C.C.A. 394, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4351
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit·Decided October 20, 1906·No. No. 1,532·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

COCHRAN, District Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill filed to enjoin the infringement of letters patent No. 620,-836, granted to Daniel Carroll, March 14, 1899, and assigned to appellant, complainant below, April 19, 1900. The answer put in issue both the validity of the patent and its infringement.

The patent is for a device for imparting uniform dimensions to chain-links, i. e., internally. Many chains, such, for instance, as pulley and crane chains which run over toothed wheels or have to fit into pockeis or depressions on the face of wheels, recpiire that the links thereof be internally of exactly equal lengths. It is to secure this result that the device covered by the patent is intended. It is a punch with two distinguishing features. One is a slightly tapering head, adapted to enter and fill the ends of a chain-link; the other, a channel in one of its faces to permit free movement therein of one arm of the adjoining link. It is thus set forth in claim 1 of the patent, which is the claim thereof alleged to have been infringed:

“In a device for regulating tile dimensions of cliain-liuks, a punch having a slightly tapering head, adapted to enter and (ill the ends of a chain-link, said punch head having a channel in one of its faces to permit the free movement therein of one arm of an adjoining link substantially as and for the purpose specified.”

A detailed view or perspective of the upper portion of the punch is shown by figure 5 of the drawings, which is as follows:

A similar view of a slightly modified form of the punch, the modification consisting in a substantially bifurcated end portion thereof, is shown by figure 6 oí the drawings, follows:

which is as

[624]

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

Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co., 148 F. 622, 78 C.C.A. 394, 1906 U.S. App. LEXIS 4351 (6th Cir. 1906).

148 F. 622 (Columbus Chain Co. v. Standard Chain Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cleeton v. Hewlett-Packard Company
343 F. Supp. 1215 (D. Maryland, 1972)
Horine v. Ethicon, Inc.
142 F. Supp. 282 (D. Maryland, 1956)
McIlvaine Patent Corp. v. Walgreen Co.
44 F. Supp. 530 (N.D. Illinois, 1942)
Oliver Machinery Co. v. Gellman
104 F.2d 11 (Sixth Circuit, 1939)
McKay Co. v. Shott Mfg. Co.
25 F. Supp. 716 (S.D. Ohio, 1937)
Nilson v. Ford Motor Co.
38 F.2d 1001 (D. Minnesota, 1929)
Lowe v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
2 F.2d 157 (N.D. California, 1924)
The Talus
248 F. 670 (Fifth Circuit, 1918)
Twentieth Century Machinery Co. v. Loew Mfg. Co.
243 F. 373 (Sixth Circuit, 1917)
American Graphophone Co. v. Gimbel Bros.
234 F. 344 (S.D. New York, 1916)
Charles Hunnicutt Co. v. A. B. Gaston Co.
218 F. 176 (Third Circuit, 1914)
Moline Plow Co. v. Rock Island Plow Co.
212 F. 727 (Seventh Circuit, 1914)
Sheffield Car. Co. v. D'Arcy
194 F. 686 (Sixth Circuit, 1912)
Buser v. Novelty Tufting Machine Co.
151 F. 478 (Sixth Circuit, 1907)