Marshall v. Baxter Textile Machines, Inc.

318 F. Supp. 324, 166 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 535, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11770
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedMay 11, 1970
DocketCiv. A. No. 2105
StatusPublished

This text of 318 F. Supp. 324 (Marshall v. Baxter Textile Machines, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Marshall v. Baxter Textile Machines, Inc., 318 F. Supp. 324, 166 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 535, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11770 (W.D.N.C. 1970).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

McMILLAN, District Judge.

In 1954, United States patent #2,673,-575 (Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit 78) was issued upon the 1951 application of Walter J. Budzyna and Americo Gouveia, inventors. The patent was assigned to Draper Corporation. Draper assigned legal title to the patent to plaintiffs Marshall and Bomar, trustees for Draper. North American Rockwell, the additional plaintiff, has succeeded to Draper’s rights. References in this opinion to “Draper” include North American Rockwell.

The suit alleges that the defendants (collectively referred to as “Picanol”) have been infringing and are infringing the patent. Treble damages, accounting, injunction and costs are demanded.

The defendants deny validity of the patent, deny infringement, and seek costs, attorneys fees, and damages for alleged misuse of the patent.

The patent includes various claims relating to devices for adjustment of the harness mechanism on power looms used in textile plants.

A loom is a machine which weaves threads into cloth or fabric. The principle of the loom is the same as the principle employed in the hand looms in use thousands of years ago. The details vary.

A modern loom (illustrated by photographs, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 75A and 75B) gets part of the thread or yarn which is its raw material from a large spool or “beam” around which are wrapped many yarn threads. These threads, comprising the “warp” of the fabric being manufactured, unroll parallel from the beam and pass horizontally through openings in small metal hangers called “heddles” which stretch vertically between the upper and lower horizontal bars of a frame called a heddle frame. The heddle frame looks something like a window sash suspended by straps from pulleys above. In a simple square weave, a loom would have two heddle frames. Their physical relationship to each other would be generally similar to the relationship of the two sashes of a double hung window. Half the yarn threads would pass through the heddles of one heddle frame, and half the threads would pass through the heddles of the other heddle frame. Each heddle carries alternate threads. Machinery is provided with cam action to pull each heddle frame alternately down a few inches, and then allow it to rise back up under spring tension from the clock springs in the harness mechanism above. This al[326]*326ternate raising and lowering of the front and rear heddle frames produces a horizontal "V” opening or “shed” between the two groups of threads. The shuttle carrying the cross threads or “filling” passes back and forth horizontally through this “shed.” The up and down alternation of the threads across the filling or cross thread is what produces the weave. Each passage of the shuttle or other thread-carrying agency through the shed is called a “pick.”

Loom speeds vary from less than one hundred to as many as two hundred and fifty picks per minute. Because there has been no major break-through in weaving principles since the first shepherd wove the first coat, devices which produce a little more speed in doing the same old thing have been hailed with great acclaim in the industry.

The controversy in this case has nothing to do with the direct process of weaving which is briefly described above, but it has to do with the adjustment of the harness by which the heddle frames are raised; it deals with the adjustment of tension on the springs in the heddle’s “top harness” which raises heddle frames to their “up” position.

Some weaves require four or six heddle frames or more. Each frame is raised to its particular desired height by a separate harness. Each frame in former years was supported usually by spiral or coil springs which in various former designs might connect with the top of the heddle frame directly and vertically, or horizontally and through a strap, or vertically to a strap which passes through a set of pulleys before connecting with the top of the heddle frame. As early as 1900, large spiral springs six to ten inches in circumference (“clock springs”) were patented for use in raising heddle frames. As long as there were only two frames per loom the problem of adjustment of spring tension was manageable. The loom tender or “fixer” could adjust the tension on the individual springs supporting particular frames by making individual adjustment at the end of each spring or at either end of the attached weight bearing strap.

As early as 1903, patent applications showed that the industry wanted better and safer methods of making simultaneous adjustment of all of the clock springs upholding the heddle frames on a particular loom. A simultaneous adjustment, by turning an outside shaft head, or gear handle, or lever, was obviously preferable to making separate adjustment of tension on four or six or more clock springs.

The simultaneous adjustment claimed under the plaintiffs’ Draper patent and the simultaneous adjustment provided by the defendants’ Picanol looms both include turning an external gear handle or external wrench attachment, thereby causing the rotation of an axle shaft which carries all the clock springs and, by thus rotating the shaft, tightening or loosening the tension on the springs.

The plaintiffs do not claim to have patent rights to the simultaneous adjustment of tension on multiple springs coiled around a common shaft.

The plaintiffs do not claim to have patent rights to the use of a gear and worm to produce the rotation and fixation of a shaft. Prior art and prior patents such as the Schaeffer patent (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 80) make such a contention untenable.

The plaintiffs do claim a “combination” of elements, all of which have been previously patented and all of which have been used in previous devices. It is the “totality” and “combination” of these elements which is alleged by the plaintiffs to be protected by the patent and infringed by the defendants.

The plaintiffs claim infringement of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the patent (Plaintiffs’ Trial Exhibit 78).

CLAIMS 1 AND 2

Claims 1 and 2 read as follows:

“1. A spring top harness mechanism for looms comprising a supporting [327]*327casing, a shaft borne within said casing and a plurality of clock spring units carried on said shaft and within said casing, each said unit including a hub fixed to the shaft, a drum to which a harness cord is attached said drum being rotatable relative to said shaft and a clock spring having one end fixed to said hub and the other end fixed to the drum, and means comprising complementary, interengaging means a plurality of which form a part of said casing and at least one of which is carried by said shaft for releasably locking said spring units in a predetermined, tensioned relationship.
“2. A spring top harness mechanism for looms comprising a supporting casing, a shaft borne within said casing and a plurality of clock spring units carried on said shaft and within said casing, each said unit including a hub fixed to the shaft, a drum to which a harness cord is attached said drum being rotatable relative to said shaft and a clock spring having one end fixed to said hub and the other end fixed to the drum, and means for rotating said shaft to tension the springs and for retaining the springs in tensioned relationship comprising a member fixed to said shaft externally of the casing, said member having surfaces adapted to receive an instrument for applying torque to the shaft and means

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
318 F. Supp. 324, 166 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 535, 1970 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-baxter-textile-machines-inc-ncwd-1970.