Regina Music Box Co. v. Paillard

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Regina Music Box Co. v. Paillard

85 F. 644, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2901

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 85 F. 644 (Regina Music Box Co. v. Paillard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Regina Music Box Co. v. Paillard, 85 F. 644, 1898 U.S. App. LEXIS 2901 (circtsdny 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

TOWNSEND, District Judge.

This suit is brought by the manufacturers of the Regina music box, and charges infringement of four patents, — Nos. 500,369 and 500,370, for a damper, and No. 500,374, for [645]*645a tooth of a music disc, and No. 500,372, for a governor. The claims of the damper patents charged to have been, infringed are:

Claim 2 of No. 500,369.

“(2) A clamper for music boxes, struck up from a single piece of spring metal consisting of a main body portion, cam, e, formed on said body portion* and arm, f, formed integral therewith, and at substantially right angles thereto, as and for the purposes described.”

Claim 1 of No. 500,370.

“(1) A damper for music boxes, consisting of the main spring body portion, d, a,rm or arms, e, e2, provided with damping fingers, f, f2, adapted to bear against the sides of the tongue or tongues to be damped, and cam, g, as and for the purposes described.”

The principal office of the damper of the music box is, after a comb tongue has been struck, and the sound caused by the vibraüon has continued a sufficient length of time, to press against the comb tongue, and terminate the vibration. The applications for patents No. 500.369 and No. 500,370 were filed at the same time, and the patents were issued at the same time. Both show the complainant’s spring damper, having a body portion and an arm integral therewith, and at substantially right angles thereto; and neither claim it broadly. In No. 500,369, the cam by which the damper is operated is in the rear of the sprocket wheel, and is operated by the ends of the teeth; in No. 500.370 it is at the side and is operated by the sides of the teeth. In defendant’s device, holes are made in the flat surface of the star wheel, and, as the star wheel is turned, the cam on defendant’s damper passes into and out of these holes, and the damper is thus moved to [646]*646wards or away from the comb tongue. Complainant’s damper' does not normally rest against the comb tongue, but is pressed against it by the action of the cam at suitable intervals. In defendant’s construction the damper is normally held against the comb tongue by its spring, and is pressed away from it at intervals by means of the cam. The defendant’s damper has the body portion, mentioned in claim 2 of No. 500,369, and a curved part integral therewith, and at substantially right angles thereto, corresponding to the aim, f, of complainant’s damper; but the cam, e, is not upon the body portion, but upon the arm.

Claim 2 of No. 500,369 is, by its terms, expressly limited to a damper having a cam formed on the body portion:. Defendant’s damper, aside from other differences, some of which seem to be material does not have its cam upon the body portion, and therefore does not infringe said claim.

The question whether No. 500,370 has a drag action upon the star wheel was much discussed. After a careful consideration of the whole evidence, I find that it has such action, and that it is of great value.

Defendant has the main spring body portion, d, and arm, e, of Figs. 1 and 3 of No. 500,370, and the cam, g, and the end of defendant’s damper, which presses against the side of the tongue to be damped, is equivalent to the damping finger, f, of complainant’s patent. It is not specified in complainant’s patent that this finger must be in a different plane from the arm, e.

Operating the cam by means of the holes in the flat surface of the wheel is a mechanical equivalent of the mode of operation described in the patent

The Lochman patent, No. 417,650, issued December 17, 1889, had shown that a spring damper might be applied to a star wheel by the resiliency of the spring, and thrown off by the action of the wheel.

The Regina music box has had very great success, superseding to a large extent former music boxes, and is much superior to any before on the market. The manufacturer of defendant’s boxes was formerly employed in making complainant’s boxes, and left to commence the manufacture of the infringing boxes on his own account, and defendant handles most, or a large part, of the boxes. Under these circumstances, complainant’s patent is entitled to a favorable construction as against the defendant. Even if defendant’s construction is an improvement on plaintiff’s device, it infringes it. Claim 1 of No. 500,370, when limited to the damper above referred to, shown in Figs.' 1 and 3, is valid and infringed.

The claims of the note-tooth patent,. No. 500,374, alleged to be infringed, are as follows:

(1) “A music-plate or cylinder having doubled teeth, a, a, single continuous pieces that project from its surface, substantially as described.” (2) “A music-plate having doubled teeth, a, &1 2, each tooth having one end suspended from the plate, and its other end turned outward and abutting upon said plate, and each tooth consisting of a single continuous piece, substantially as herein shown and described.”

[647]

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