Popular Mechanics Co. v. Brown

Seventh Circuit

Popular Mechanics Co. v. Brown

245 F. 859, 158 C.C.A. 199, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1557

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 10, 1917

DocketNo. 2433

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 245 F. 859 (Popular Mechanics Co. v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Popular Mechanics Co. v. Brown, 245 F. 859, 158 C.C.A. 199, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1557 (7th Cir. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BAKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction restraining appellant, publisher of the Popular Mechanics magazine, from contributory infringement of appellee’s patent No. 1,175,506, March 14, 1916, for a garage.

Appellant’s offense consisted of publishing in the reading section of its August, 1916, number a picture in perspective of a garage and a 20-line general description (without plans and specifications) from which a sufficiently skilled reader might erect a structure embodying the idea of the patent; and the decree enjoined the circulation of that issue. But appellee had no monopoly of the news that he had obtained such a patent. Appellant’s real offense therefore was in publishing the [860]*860description without stating at the same time that the structure was patented.

No proof is in the record that appellant either had built or was threatening to build a garage of the patented type. Consequently there was no basis for a finding of direct infringement, actual or impending. For one to be guilty of contributory infringement, there must be a direct infringement, existing or threatened — something to which to contribute. No proof was made that any reader had-erected or was about to erect such a garage; or that any reader was accustomed to avail himself of the instructive matter in Popular Mechanics beyond his fireside and easy chair; or that the bare possibility that there was somewhere a reader who some time might act upon the information was in truth a greater possibility than if the article had also stated that appellee had obtained a patent on the structure. „But at all events a possibility is not a threat. In our judgment, therefore, no basis existed for a finding of contributory infringement. Compare Luten v. Town of Lee (D. C.) 206 Fed. 904; Walker on Patents, § 407; Toppan v. Tiffany Car Co. (C. C.) 39 Fed. 420.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded, for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

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

BAKER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a preliminary injunction restraining appellant, publisher of the Popular Mechanics magazine, from contributory infringement of appellee’s patent No. 1,175,506, March 14, 1916, for a garage.

Appellant’s offense consisted of publishing in the reading section of its August, 1916, number a picture in perspective of a garage and a 20-line general description (without plans and specifications) from which a sufficiently skilled reader might erect a structure embodying the idea of the patent; and the decree enjoined the circulation of that issue. But appellee had no monopoly of the news that he had obtained such a patent. Appellant’s real offense therefore was in publishing the [860]*860description without stating at the same time that the structure was patented.

No proof is in the record that appellant either had built or was threatening to build a garage of the patented type. Consequently there was no basis for a finding of direct infringement, actual or impending. For one to be guilty of contributory infringement, there must be a direct infringement, existing or threatened — something to which to contribute. No proof was made that any reader had-erected or was about to erect such a garage; or that any reader was accustomed to avail himself of the instructive matter in Popular Mechanics beyond his fireside and easy chair; or that the bare possibility that there was somewhere a reader who some time might act upon the information was in truth a greater possibility than if the article had also stated that appellee had obtained a patent on the structure. „But at all events a possibility is not a threat. In our judgment, therefore, no basis existed for a finding of contributory infringement. Compare Luten v. Town of Lee (D. C.) 206 Fed. 904; Walker on Patents, § 407; Toppan v. Tiffany Car Co. (C. C.) 39 Fed. 420.

The decree is reversed, and the cause remanded, for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 F. 859, 158 C.C.A. 199, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/popular-mechanics-co-v-brown-ca7-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack