National Meter Co. v. Yonkers Water Commissioners

149 U.S. 48, 13 S. Ct. 774, 37 L. Ed. 644, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2271
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 17, 1893
Docket192
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 U.S. 48 (National Meter Co. v. Yonkers Water Commissioners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
National Meter Co. v. Yonkers Water Commissioners, 149 U.S. 48, 13 S. Ct. 774, 37 L. Ed. 644, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2271 (1893).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Blatcheord

delivered the opinion of the court.

'This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of th& United States for the Southern District of New York, by the-National Meter Company, a New York corporation, against the Board of Water Commissioners of the city of Yonkers,, another New York corporation, founded on -reissued letters *49 patent of the United States No. 10,806, granted, February 8, 1887, to the plaintiff as assignee of Lewis Hallock Nash; for improvements in water-meters. The application for the reissue was filed December 18, 1886, on. the surrender of original letters patent No. 211,582, granted to said Nash, January 21, 1879, for improvements in water-meters, the application therefor having been filed September 4, 1878. The claims of the reissue alleged to have been infringed ar§ claims 3, 4, 5 and 6, which are as follows:

“ 3. A piston for water-meters, pumps, and motors provided with internal water, passages, and having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses adapted, by means of a cylinder-chamber having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses, to have an eccentric or side-rocking movement within and upon continually-changing lines across the centre of said chamber to effect its division at two or more points on its sides into receiving and discharging spaces cc, which communicate with the inlet and outlet.

“4. A piston for water-meters, pumps, and' motors having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses adapted, by means of a cylinder-chamber having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses, to have an eccentric or side-rocking movement within and upon continually-changing lines across the centre of said chamber to effect its division at two or more points on its sides into receiving and discharging spaces cc, which communicate with the inlet aud outlet, said •piston having a free movement within said cylinder, controlled only by the shape of the cylinder, the shape of the piston and the flow of water through the meter.

5. A piston for water-meters, pumps, and motors having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses adapted, by means of a cylinder-chamber having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses, to have an eccentric or side-rocking motion within and upon continually-changing lines; across the centre of said chamber to effect its division at two or more points on’ its sides into receiving and discharging-spaces cc, which communicate with the inlet and outlet, said piston being’ formed of hard rubber and having a free move *50 ment within said cylinder controlled by the shapé of the piston, the shape of the cylinder, and the flow of the water through the meter.

“ 6. A piston for water-meters, pumps, and motors having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses adapted, by means of a cylinder-chamber having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses, to have an eccentric or side-rocking movement within and upon continually changing lines across the centre of said chamber to effect its division at two or more points on its sides into receiving and discharging spaces cc, which communióate with the inlet and outlet, combined with ports controlled by said piston itself in its motion within said chamber.”

The defences set up in the answer are (1) that the reissue is invalid as to the said four claims, because it was applied for and secured eight years after the grant of the original patent, not for the purpose contemplated by the statute, of correcting any error that arose from inadvertence, accident or mistake, but for the purpose of changing the patent so that it would claim combinations of devices which were not the subject of the claims of the original patent, nor: described therein. as being the inventions of Nash for which he obtained said original patent, in order that, by means of the reissue,, the plaintiff might prevent the Hersey Meter Company, which manufactured the meters used, by the' defendant, and had assumed the defence of the suit, from carrying on its business; and, further, on the ground .that Nash and the plaintiff •unreasonably and - fraudulently delayed undertaking to correct the alleged defects by a reissue, and did not make application for the reissue until the Hersey company .had made and sold large numbers of meters of 'the type in question; and that the reissue was applied for and_obtained for the sole purpose of .procuring a new.patent for other and different inventions fropi those forming the subject-matter' of the claims. of the original patent; and, further, that the reissue was' procured by deceiving the Patent Office, and . by fraudulent and untrue representations to that office, and that any right to the reissue was forfeited by the plaintiff’s delay and laches, in not apply *51 ing for it until long after the plaintiff had full knowledge of all the facts upon which such application purported to be based, and long after the Hersey company had made, sold and introduced into use meters identical with those used by the defendant; (2) that Nash did not particularly point out and •distinctly claim the part, improvement or combination which he claimed as his invention or discovery, but, on the contrary, wilfully and fraudulently made his claims, in the original patent and the reissue in ambiguous language, intended to mislead the public, with the view of making it difficult to determine the real scope of his claims, and of reserving the right to contend for such interpretation thereof as the exigencies of any particular case might, in his judgment or that of his assignee, require ; (3) non-infringement, and that the meter used by the defendant is substantially different, in construction and mode of operation, from the meter of the reissue; and that no invention is shown or described in the reissue upon which is, or could have been based any claim which would be infringed by the defendant’s meter.

Proofs were taken, and the case was heard before Judge "Wallace, who delivered an opiñion, (38 Fed. Rep. 588,) holding that the defendant’s meter did not infringe any of the claims in question, and entered a decree dismissing, the bill, with costs. From that decree the plaintiff appealed to this court.

We do not find it necessary to consider the question of the validity of the reissue, because we are of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court must be affirmed on the ground that the defendant has not infringed.

.The original patent had eight claims, as follows:

“ 1. A piston for water-meters, pumps, and motors having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses adapted, by means of a cylinder-chamber having alternate bearing points or projections and recesses, to have an eccentric or side-rocking movement within and upon continually-changing lines across the centre of said chamber to effect'its division at two or more points on its sides into receiving and discharging spaces cc, which communicate with the inlet and outlet.

*52 2. The piston of a water-meter, pump,. or motor constructed with alternate recesses and bearing points or projections a-and b,

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

Related

Nash Engineering Co. v. W. D. Cashin & Co.
3 F.2d 686 (D. Massachusetts, 1925)
Berry v. Chase
146 F. 625 (Sixth Circuit, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 U.S. 48, 13 S. Ct. 774, 37 L. Ed. 644, 1893 U.S. LEXIS 2271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-meter-co-v-yonkers-water-commissioners-scotus-1893.