Home/N.D. Texas/Murray v. Hodo

Murray v. Hodo

276 F. 740, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 992
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedSeptember 12, 1921
DocketNo. 2839-95
StatusPublished

This text of 276 F. 740 (Murray v. Hodo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murray v. Hodo, 276 F. 740, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 992 (N.D. Tex. 1921).

Opinion

MEEK, District Judge.

This is 'a suit by Stephen D. Murray, of Dallas, Tex., and the Murray Company, a Texas corporation, based upon the alleged infringement of United States letters patent No. 1,086,204, dated February 3, 1914, issued to said Stephen D. Murray, under which patent the other plaintiff, the Murray Company-, is exclusive licensee by grant from Murray. The patent relates to cotton gins, and the objects of the same are to provide novel means for the removing of lint cotton from the teeth of the gin in an expeditious and reliable manner.

The bill avers that the defendant is infringing the plaintiff’s right under said letters patent and threatens and intends to continue such infringement, and prays for an injunction to prevent such infringement and for an account.

The defendant Wesley A. J. Hodo, of Fort Worth, Tex., alleges in his answer, among other defenses, the following:

Paragraph 8: “The defendant charges that alleged letters patent are so limited in scope by the prior art that it is entitled to only the narrowest possible construction, and that when so limited the defendant is not infringing said alleged letters patent, and cites patents in the prior art as follows: Patent No. 552,382, Dec. 31, .1805, saw cotton gin to bumpkin et al.; Patent No. 632,685, Sept. 5, 1899, cotton gin, to Thomas; Patent No. 568,610, Sept. 29, 1896, cotton gin, to Graber; Patent No. 700,347, May 20, 1902, cotton, gin, to bumpkin — as anticipating the invention claimed in said alleged patent to Murray.”
Paragraph 11: “The defendant denies that he is making, selling, or using, or that he ever has made, sold, or used the construction shown in said alleged patent, and declares that he is manufacturing, selling, and using the inventions shown in letters patent granted to him as follows : Patent No. 1,203,739, dated November 7, 1916, for cotton ginning, cleaning, and bleaching mechanism, and patent No. 1,230,298 process of ginning, cleaning, and bleaching mechanism, dated June 19, 1917.”

The patentee, Murray, gives what he terms the “salient feature of his invention” on page 1, lines 48 to 79 of his patent, as follows:

“The salient feature of the invention is, however, a tubular member longitudinally disposed in the body of the gin and laying along the ginning mechanism, and, as will be. hereinafter noted, this tubular member will also prominently and effectively serve to connect the legs of the gin frame as shown assembled in operative relation to the gin saws, to the teeth of which air currents of high velocity are practically and-continuously applied and with substantially undiminished action during a considerable portion of the revolution of the saws, the air currents being caused to travel in a path coincident with the path traveled by the saw teeth and encompassed narrowly about the ginning teeth to conserve the force of the air current for removing the lint and reduce the amount of air and power that has heretofore been necessarily employed in removing lint from gin teeth. The use of this tubular member is not confined to this particular application of air, nor with the special form of gin which will be hereinafter particularly described, but is equally well adapted for use in connection with other gins, particularly to perform two of its most important functions, and which are to connect the legs of the gin frame and act as a conduit for receiving the lint cotton from the saws or ginning apparatus and conducting it away from the gin.”

The following is figure 5 taken from the Murray patent, No. 1,086,-204. This is an enlarged view in cross-section of one of the gins:

[742]*742Page 2 of patent, line 32 to line 94, of specification:

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

Related

Kokomo Fence MacHine Co. v. Kitselman
189 U.S. 8 (Supreme Court, 1903)
Mossberg v. Nutter
135 F. 95 (First Circuit, 1905)
Autopiano Co. v. Amphion Piano Player Co.
186 F. 159 (Second Circuit, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 F. 740, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 992, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-hodo-txnd-1921.