Victor Cooler Door Co. v. Jamison Cold Storage Door Co.

44 F.2d 288, 7 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 221, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3343
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedOctober 21, 1930
Docket3032
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 44 F.2d 288 (Victor Cooler Door Co. v. Jamison Cold Storage Door Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Victor Cooler Door Co. v. Jamison Cold Storage Door Co., 44 F.2d 288, 7 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 221, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3343 (4th Cir. 1930).

Opinion

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

This suit was instituted in the court below by the Jamison Cold Storage Door Company, hereafter referred to as complainant, against the Victor Cooler Door Company, referred to as defendant, to enjoin infringement of patents Nos. 1,099,626 and 1,208,042, issued to one Stevenson, and for an accounting of profits and damages. The first of these patents covers a latch or fastener for use on heavy doors such as those of refrigerators ; the second covers a closure unit for use in a refrigerator, or other room where the temperature is maintained, at a degree different from that of the surrounding atmosphere, consisting of an inner door or doors which automatically close and an outer door equipped with an automatic latch which is opened when the inner door is pushed against it. Com *289 plainant claims that defendant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of a closure unit consisting of doors in a frame, the outer door being equipped with a latch which infringes its first patent, and the whole being constructed in such way as to infringe its second patent. The defendant denies infringement and denies that either of the patents is valid. The District Judge held both patents valid and infringed; and from a decree in favor of complainant, defendant has appealed. The opinion of the court below will be found in 38 F.(2d) 490.

The latch or fastener covered by complainant’s first patent is to be attached to a door and is engaged by a keeper attached to the door facing. The latch proper is ngidly attached to one end of a short shaft, at the other end of which is rigidly attached a handle or lever. Around the shaft and attached to it is a spiral spring, the force of which tends to push the latch proper downward into locking position. The latch is released from outside the door by pulling the lever in the direction in which the door opens. It is equipped with a push rod, extending through the door and connected with the lever, and can he released from inside the door by pressing against this push-rod. A better understanding of its nature and operation will he gained from an examination of the drawing describing it, which we hereto attach.

*290 The only claim of this first patent upon which complainant relies is claim 1, which is as follows: “1. In a fastener for doors, the combination of a latch for holding the door closed, a spring for normally throwing the latch to locking position, and means for releasing said latch, including a swinging lever on one side of said door, a push rod extending through the door, and connected to said lever, and devices for connecting the lever to the latch, whereby the movement of the lever in the direction for opening the door, will release the latch.”

Defendant’s latch consists of a latch bar on the door engaged by a keeper on the facing. It is forced downward into the keeper by a spring from above and is raised by a handle or lever. This lever is pivoted and a short arm extends from it beneath the latch bar. The latch is raised from outside the door by pulling the lever in the direction in which the door opens. It is raised from inside the door by pressing against a bar which, in turn, presses against a push rod which extends through the door and presses against but is not attached to the lever on the outside. In operation, it differs from complainant’s latch in that the latch bar cannot be pushed down in the keeper by pressing against the lever from the outside or by pulling the push bar from within. This difference arises because the lever is not rigidly attached to the latch bar and the push rod is not attached to the lever as in complainant’s patent. The following drawings illustrate its construction and operation:

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

Related

Entron of Maryland, Inc. v. Jerrold Electronics Corp.
186 F. Supp. 483 (D. Maryland, 1960)
Davis v. Buck-Jackson Corp.
138 F. Supp. 908 (E.D. South Carolina, 1955)
Alward v. Jordan Marsh Co.
120 F. Supp. 580 (D. Massachusetts, 1954)
Boston Metals Co. v. Air Products Inc.
193 F.2d 535 (Fourth Circuit, 1952)
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co.
192 F.2d 270 (Fourth Circuit, 1951)
Watson v. Heil
96 F. Supp. 61 (D. Maryland, 1951)
Smith v. General Foundry MacH. Co.
174 F.2d 147 (Fourth Circuit, 1949)
Hutzler Bros. v. Sales Affiliates, Inc.
164 F.2d 260 (Fourth Circuit, 1947)
Prosperity Co. v. American Machine & Metals, Inc.
142 F.2d 800 (Third Circuit, 1944)
Sanford Inv. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.
131 F.2d 837 (Fourth Circuit, 1942)
Young v. John McShain, Inc.
130 F.2d 31 (Fourth Circuit, 1942)
Kilgore Mfg. Co. v. Triumph Explosives, Inc.
37 F. Supp. 766 (D. Maryland, 1941)
Fretwell v. Peoples Service Drug Stores, Inc.
118 F.2d 76 (Fourth Circuit, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 F.2d 288, 7 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 221, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 3343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victor-cooler-door-co-v-jamison-cold-storage-door-co-ca4-1930.