Harrington Manufacturing Co. v. White

323 F. Supp. 1345, 169 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14480
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Florida
DecidedFebruary 23, 1971
DocketCiv. A. No. 1443
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 323 F. Supp. 1345 (Harrington Manufacturing Co. v. White) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harrington Manufacturing Co. v. White, 323 F. Supp. 1345, 169 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14480 (N.D. Fla. 1971).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION

MIDDLEBROOKS, District Judge.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE ACTION

Plaintiff, Harrington Manufacturing Co., Inc., is a North Carolina Corporation and owner of the United States Patent No. 3,327,745, issued on June 27, 1967. The defendant is a resident of Florida. This is an action for damages to compensate for an alleged infringement, an injunction against further infringement and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees. The answer of defendant denies infringement and asserts as an additional defense the invalidity of Patent No. 3,327,745. Additionally, by counterclaim the defendant asks that the Court adjudge that the patent of plaintiff is invalid and that the Court declare the right of defendant to continue his operations without interference by or from plaintiff.

On October 5, 1966, Fred W. Meece and Frank B. Dew made application for a patent of a tree cutter device resulting in the issuance of the patent on June 27, 1967. The rights of the inventors were assigned to the plaintiff. A copy of the patent including the specifications, claims and drawings are appended hereto. There are ten (10) claims set forth in the patent and it is specifically alleged by plaintiff that claims 1, 2, 5, 7 and 10 are infringed by defendant. The claims 1 and 2 are “independent” claims, whereas the remaining claims are “dependent” claims.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In mid-1965, Meece and Dew made a decision to attempt to improve upon the art of felling trees. They con[1347]*1347tend that they were unaware at this time that many other persons and companies had already developed “tree shears” for cutting down trees, though they were familiar with the many problems of known tree cutting operations. Although Meece and Dew claim that they were unaware of prior art, because of the obvious similarity of the Meece-Dew shear head to shear heads found in prior art, this Court finds that Meece and Dew were familiar with prior art in the field.

The Meece-Dew invention described in the patent in suit involved a combination of structural components to create a hydraulically operated tree shear for mounting on the front end of a tractor or other vehicle. Meece and Dew do not claim to have conceived the idea of providing a tractor mounted tree shear inasmuch as the patent expressly states in Column 1:

“The basic idea of counting hydraulically driven tree shears on a tractor and using it to cut down trees is now about thirty years old.”

The combination arrived at by Meece and Dew includes a “shear head” consisting of a fixed jaw having a shearing blade pivotally mounted adjacent to the jaw for movement toward and away from the fixed jaw under the control of hydraulic cylinders. The “shear head” is mounted on the front end of the tractor. The front end mounting of the shear head is accomplished by the use of a “C-frame” consisting of two parallel supporting arms rigidly interconnected to one another at their front ends by an elongated horizontally disposed beam that extends completely across the front end of the tractor. Each of the parallel supporting arms is pivotally attached to the tractor at its rear end and the “C-frame” is adapted to be moved up and down under the control of a hydraulic cylinder. The shear head is also pivotable being connected to the horizontally disposed beam by pivotable members. This pivotable interconnection between the shear head and the elongated beam is claimed to be an important feature of the novelty of the invention permitting the arrangement to achieve the “basic concept” which is described as a means for varying the angle of the plane of the jaw members with respect to the beam. Great emphasis is placed upon this “basic concept” and it is said to be adjusted through cooperation between the pivotal interconnection and the “flexible interconnection means.” In the drawings contained in the patent, the “flexible interconnection means” are shown to be a cable and a chain. Other alternative flexible interconnection means are described in the specifications and the claims. It is noted that in claim 10 of the patent, hereinafter referred to as the “Meece patent”, that one of the alternative means “comprises an adjustable hydraulic cylinder.”

, The claims in suit constitute two independent claims1 and three dependent claims.2 The independent claims contemplate combinations of structures comprising a particular type of shear head, 1. e., having a pair of fixed jaw members, a cutting blade pivotally mounted with respect to the fixed jaw members and a blade for moving the cutting blade relative to the jaw members. In addition, the claimed combinations of structure include a special front mounting assembly as was more fully described in paragraph 2 of the Findings of Fact. The claims in suit in addition to defining in some detail the special shear and special mounting arrangement employed, further define a particular structural arrangement for interconnecting the defined shear head to the defined mounting structure. This system functions as the result of interaction between the pivotal connections and the “flexible interconnection. means.”

The combinations recited in claims 1 and 2 are defined in further detail in claims 5, 7 and 10:

(a) Claim 5, which depends from claim 2, states that the means for rais[1348]*1348ing and lowering the beam comprises a hydraulic cylinder and piston.

(b) Claim 7, which also depends from claim 2, states that the “flexible interconnection means” includes an upstanding post and that “a flexible element” extends between this upstanding post and the fixed jaw of the shear head.

(c) Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and says that the “flexible interconnection means” comprises “an adjustable hydraulic cylinder.”

It is plaintiff’s position that the combination of elements defined in each of claims 1 and 2 and the more detailed combinations of claims 5, 7 and 10 are embodied in the accused White tree shears.

In the late summer of 1965, Meece and Dew began building a tree shear device in an attempt to find an effective means of cutting down trees. By September, 1965, they had completed and had in use two tree shears. This initial device included a conventional cutter head or shear head in which the cutting blade was hydraulically pivoted with respect to a pair of fixed jaws. Additionally, the shear head was pivotally attached to a cross-beam between a pair of parallel arms in the form of a C-frame and was supported off the ground by a chain.

Meece explained at trial that when he and Dew adopted the chain as the support linkage for the shear head in their tree shear, they did not want a rigid connection. They wanted a support linkage which would “give”. The “flexible interconnection means” of the Meece patent tree shear was designed to perform at least two functions: to permit free pivotal movement of the shear head and to serve to limit the downwardmost position of the arc through which the shear head could move.

Meece and Dew had by December, 1965, built a third tree shear which closely resembled the initially built device except that the chain supporting linkage was replaced by a combination cable and steel bar with adjustment holes. Plaintiff, having learned of the Meece-Dew shear, entered into a contract in February, 1966, with Meece and Dew whereby plaintiff would manufacture and sell this device and attempt to patent it.

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

Related

Amerace Corp. v. Ferro Corp.
532 F. Supp. 1188 (N.D. Texas, 1982)
General Electric Co. v. United States
572 F.2d 745 (Court of Claims, 1978)
Azoplate Corporation v. Silverlith, Inc.
367 F. Supp. 711 (D. Delaware, 1973)
Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc.
359 F. Supp. 948 (S.D. Florida, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
323 F. Supp. 1345, 169 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 193, 1971 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrington-manufacturing-co-v-white-flnd-1971.