Sundh Electric Co. v. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co.

244 F. 163, 156 C.C.A. 591, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2011
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMay 25, 1917
DocketNos. 152, 179
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 244 F. 163 (Sundh Electric Co. v. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sundh Electric Co. v. Cutler-Hammer Mfg. Co., 244 F. 163, 156 C.C.A. 591, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2011 (2d Cir. 1917).

Opinion

HOUGH, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

[1] The claims in suit are printed in 198 Fed. 117, and 235 Fed. 710, and the opinions containing them fully describe the type of apparatus under consideration, its purpose and function. When (in 204 Fed. 277, 122 C. C. A. 475) the General Electric Case was here before, we felt it impossible to deal with the matters in issue, otherwise than to consider the apparent weight of evidence (largely opinion) relating to the very technical application of an abstruse science. Even without reference to the Cutler-Hammer record, it is now plain that the points then deemed obscure and difficult have been greatly elucidated by testimony now for the first time laid before us. Thus Ihlder, the patentee, whose application had been promoted contemporaneously with that of Lindquist and by the same solicitor, did not testify upon the original hearing, and we criticized his absence. 204 Fed. 278, 122 C. C. A. 475. This omission has been more than supplied by the evidence of Lindquist himself.

Again, it was held below (198 Fed. 123) that it would be “practically impossible to make' an operative device” from the teachings of the Schuckert German patent, and we substantially accepted this finding upon the evidence as it then existed (204 Fed. 280, 122 C. C. A. 475). It now appears that one of plaintiff’s own witnesses constructed a Schuckert magnet and testified concerning his handiwork that it did not chatter with no load, began to chatter at 45 pounds, and was released between 65 and 75.

The patent to Scott (No. 639,447) was in evidence on the first appeal, and was destructively criticized by plaintiff’s witnesses and not referred to in any opinion rendered until 235 Fed. 712, where it is erroneously said to have been “fully considered” by - both courtSn As matter of fact it was viewed as a paper patent, and plaintiff’s counsel greatly emphasized the statement (then undoubted) that de[165]*165fendant had neither produced a Scott device, nor shown to the court that it covered a working and workable apparatus. It is now admitted that the so-called Scott-Lamme magnet went into extensive and successful use for years, and we have before us an actual apparatus which has practically demonstrated its value.

Research since the first appeal has also revealed a French patent (No. 322,254) antedating Lindquist and describing a magnet operated or actuated by a two-wire current; and finally it now appears what is the relation in the mind of the patentee himself between his own (so-called) senior and junior patents. Speculation is no longer necessary as to why two applications were filed.

Considering the nature and extent of the foregoing new matter, of which a considerable part appears also in the Cutler-Hammer record, it seems advisable to restate the construction of the patent made upon an incomplete record, as preface to a statement of chánges of view produced by new evidence, and to do this before consideration of the motion of General Hlectric Company to reopen the whole case.

The object of Mr. Lindquist’s invention, as plainly stated in his specification, was to hold an armature in position with an alternating current by means of a “substantially constant pull” and (as a result) “without chattering.” It being obviously unlawful to attempt to patent per se “a substantially constant pull,” the applicant describes his patentable means, which are a “symmetrical” disposition of a “plurality of coils” around a “central axis”; the axis of each coil being “parallel to said central axis.” This symmetrical disposition of coils is illustrated by numerous figures, all revealing coils in pairs except one (Fig. 5), which exhibits three coils only. The currents actuating said coils are shown in both two-wire and three-wire systems; in the former case dephasing of current being accomplished by a resistance for which the patentee asserts no invention in himself. Having disclosed these various embodiments of the means of attaining his result, Lindquist sums the matter up by calling attention to the fact that in all his various styles of apparatus “the axes of the coils are always parallel to, and symmetrically disposed around, the axes of the cylindrical magnet core.” It is thus seen that what the patentee described as his invention, the things upon which he founded the claims descriptive and definitive of that invention, all consist in a symmetrical arrangement of coils, always parallel to and surrounding the axis of the cylindrical core.

It has always been admitted that this description and the claims in suit accurately fit a core cylindrical in the ordinary geometrical sense and symmetrically (i. e., in a circumference) surrounded by coils also cylindrical and having axes parallel to that of the cylindrical core. But such a reading of the claim (it was said) would confine the patentee to a mechanical arrangement, capable of avoidance by infringers, without departing from a co-ordination of parts capable of producing the same electrical and mechanical results as those sought after and attained by Lindquist, and Magnet II was urged as an effort to accomplish exactly this result. The situation, and the nature of the argument is summarized by the subjoined drawings.

[166]

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

Related

United States v. Newbury Mfg. Co.
123 F.2d 453 (First Circuit, 1941)
Hartford-Empire Co. v. OBEARNESTER GLASS CO.
95 F.2d 414 (Eighth Circuit, 1938)
Dobson v. United States
31 F.2d 288 (Second Circuit, 1929)
Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips
9 F.2d 902 (Second Circuit, 1925)
Dunkley Co. v. Central California Canneries Co.
277 F. 1001 (N.D. California, 1921)
United States v. Port Washington Brewing Co.
277 F. 306 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1921)
Mayer v. Mutschler
248 F. 911 (Second Circuit, 1918)
Barber v. Otis Motor Sales Co.
245 F. 945 (N.D. New York, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
244 F. 163, 156 C.C.A. 591, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sundh-electric-co-v-cutler-hammer-mfg-co-ca2-1917.