Schnell v. Allbright-Nell Co.

242 F. Supp. 891, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10318
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois
DecidedNovember 13, 1963
DocketCiv. A. No. 61 C 1979. (Consolidated with Civ. A. 60 C 62.)
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 F. Supp. 891 (Schnell v. Allbright-Nell Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Schnell v. Allbright-Nell Co., 242 F. Supp. 891, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10318 (N.D. Ill. 1963).

Opinion

AUSTIN, District Judge.

The Parties.

1. Plaintiff, Carl Schnell (referred to hereafter as “Schnell”), is a citizen of Germany, residing at Winterbach near Schorndorf, Germany. Plaintiff, The Griffith Laboratories, Inc. (referred to hereafter as “Griffith”), is an Illinois corporation, having its principal office and place of business in the City of Chicago, Illinois. Defendant, The AllbrightNell Company (referred to hereafter as “Allbright-Nell” or “Anco”), is a corporation of the State of Illinois, having its principal office and place of business in the City of Chicago, Illinois. De-' fendant, Peter Eckrich and Sons, Inc. (referred to hereafter as “Eckrich”), is an Indiana corporation having its principal office and place of business in the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

PX-87.

Ownership of Patents in Suit.

2. Plaintiffs are and since the respective dates of issuance have continuously been joint owners of United States Letters Patents 2,840,318, 2,906,310, 2,934,120, 2,934,121, and 3,044,514, and United States Letters Reissue Patents 24,683 and 24,764, and all rights of recovery for all infringements thereof. All of these patents were duly and legally issued on inventions made by Carl Schnell. With the exception of Reissue Patent 24,683, these patents relate to comminuting machines that emulsify meat products. These machines are widely used by sausage manufacturers to produce new and improved meat products. Reissue Patent 24,683 relates to methods for emulsifying meat products, which methods are also widely used by sausage manufacturers.

The Actions.

3. Plaintiffs, Schnell and Griffith, brought the following patent infringement actions against defendant, Eckrich, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division:

C. A. 1128, filed 2/13/59, involving U. S. Letters Patents 2,840,318 and 2,842,177;
C. A. 1184, filed 9/30/59, involving U. S. Letters Patent 2,906,310;
C. A. 1211, filed 2/8/60, involving U. S. Letters Reissue Patent 24,764 (a reissue of Patent 2,842,177); and
C. A. 1229, filed 4/26/60, involving U. S. Letters Patents 2,934,120 and 2,934,121.

PX-88, PX-89.

4. On January 14, 1960, defendant, Allbright-Nell, brought a declaratory judgment action against plaintiffs, Schnell and Griffith, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, involving U. S. Letters Reissue Patent 24,683 (a reissue of U. S. Letters Patent 2,836,-825) and U. S. Letters Reissue Patent 24,764 (a reissue of U. S. Letters Patent 2,842,177). This action was identified as Civil Action No. 60-C-62.

5. On November 21, 1961, plaintiffs brought the above-entitled Civil Action No. 61-C-1979 against defendants alleging infringement of each of U. S. [893]*893Letters Patents 2,840,318, 2,906,310, 2,934,120 and 2,934,121, and U. S. Letters Reissue Patents 24,683 and 24,764.

PX-89.

6. Civil Actions Nos. 60-C-62 and 61-C-1979 were consolidated, after which plaintiffs and defendant, Eckrich, stipulated for the dismissal, without prejudice, of the patent infringement suits in the Northern District of Indiana, referred to in Finding 3, above. This stipulation provides:

(a) The dismissal shall not give rise to the defense of estoppel or laches or statute of limitations with respect to the causes of actions set forth in the complaints in Civil Actions Nos. 60-C-62 and 61-C-1979, unless such defenses would have been available without such dismissal; and
(b) The dismissal shall not be considered a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

7. The original complaint in Civil Action No. 61-C-1979 was revised by an order of this Court, dated July 17, 1962. The revised complaint brought into suit plaintiffs’ U. S. Letters Patent 3,044,-514, issued on July 17, 1962.

Claims in Suit.

8. Plaintiffs asserted that defendants, or either of them, infringe the following patents (PX-2), including the claims identified with respect thereto:

Patent 2,840,318: Claim 2;
Patent 2,906,310: Claims 1-8;
Patent 2,934,120: Claims 1 and 2;
Patent 2,934,121: Claims 1-24;
Re. Patent 24,764: 15; Claims 1-3 and 5-
Patent 3,044,514: and 18; and, Claims 1-15, 17
Re. Patent 24,683: Claims 1-16.

Sausage Industry.

9. The sausage industry is based on the utilization of the portions of the carcasses of cattle or hogs which cannot be used as steaks or hams or pork chops. This material is known in the industry as trimmings, and is the portion of the carcass that is left over when the prime cuts are removed. Many types of trimmings contain gristle and/or hard meat (e. g., rinds and offal materials) which nonetheless have high protein or nutritional value when suitably cut.

Cypser 47, 48, 53, 54; Swanson 90, 91, 94-98, 107-110; PX-7; Turner 147-150, 165; PX-82.

10. Sausage emulsions were produced almost entirely by use of machines like the Silent Cutter, or chopper as it was more often referred to. These machines were large, bulky and relatively slow, and they did not produce the quality of emulsion now available, nor did they permit the use of many nutritious portions of the carcass which could not be adequately subdivided in them.

Swanson 80-87; Cypser 47, 48, 53.

11. The Silent Cutter was a standard piece of equipment that was used by commercial sausage kitchens for many years before Schnell discovered a meat comminuting machine. It comprised a doughnut-shaped bowl that turned in a horizontal plane and a cutting zone with a series of vertically rotating blades. The mass of meat in the doughnut-shaped bowl was forced continuously into these vertically acting cutting blades. This reduced the particle size of the meat and fat products and, with the addition of moisture that was added to the mix, made a blend. The Silent Cutter caused a high temperature rise of the meat in a short period of time. This was extremely undesirable because a high temperature rise caused a marked variation in the product which in turn affected the salability of the product. Further this machine required a batch operation. The cutting blades had to be continuously kept in a sharp condition for efficient operation and the knives presented considerable danger to the operator.

Swanson 102-104; PX-5; Turner 116-117, 152-154; Cypser 76; PX-4.

12. With the old type of sausage production which depended upon a chopper [894]*894(e. g., Silent Cutter), the hard portions, while substantially reduced in size, oftentimes were like small particles of gravel and because of this it was necessary to eliminate the use of many types of hard trimmings which had high nutritional value and which would decrease the cost of the sausage.

Cypser 53.

13. Colloid mills were also used, to a limited extent, to comminute meat. These, too, produced a high temperature rise of the meat.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 F. Supp. 891, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schnell-v-allbright-nell-co-ilnd-1963.