Home/W.D. Pennsylvania/Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Smethport Window Glass Co.

Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Smethport Window Glass Co.

266 F. 85
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 15, 1917
DocketNo. 132
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 266 F. 85 (Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Smethport Window Glass Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Smethport Window Glass Co., 266 F. 85 (W.D. Pa. 1917).

Opinion

^THOMSON, District Judge.

The burden resting on the court in this case, growing out of the numerous patents involved and the very voluminous records, has been greatly lightened by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals (261 Fed. 362) in the appeal from, a decree of this court, in the case of these plaintiffs against the Consolidated Window Glass Company and others, as many of the patents there in suit, are involved here. In my opinion in the Consolidated Case, I gave a general description of the process of drawing glass cylinders by machinery from a receptacle of molten glass;, the numerous and perplexing problems involved in the process; the large amount of money expended, and tireless experimental work required, extending over many years, before the art had reached that stage of advancement which made it commercially successful. These matters need not be repeated in this opiilion. I there found that John IT. Dubbers and his associates worked out the basic problems involved in the drawing of glass cylinders by machinery; that others before him had discovered important principles, and made ingenious experimental efforts in the field, but that to his genius and labors belongs the credit of creating this art and giving it life, resulting in the establishment of a great and useful industry.

Of the 18 patents in suit, 12 were in litigation in the Consolidated Case, namely: Lubbers patents, Nos. 702,013, 702,014, 702,015, 702,016, 702,017, 822,678, 886,618, 914,588, and 1,020,920;_ Chambers patent No. 762,880; Hitner patent, No. 821,361; and Bridge patent, No. 1,006,995. The claims of the several patents there in suit were sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals, except Dubbers apparatus and method patents, Nos. 702,016 and 702,017, covering what is known as “pop .valves” intended to allow the air to escape from the cylinder when the pressure rose above a determined limit. But, in-addition, certain patents not involved in the Consolidated Case are in 'suit'in this case, raising additional questions of validity and infringement.,; The validity of the respective claims in the various patents involved in the Consolidated Case having thus been established, the inquiry, so far as the same questions are raised here, has been very greatly narrowed.

In determining the question of validity and infringement, the claims can best be considered in groups as they relate to a particular process or patent:

[1] First, as to bath problems, patents, and claims: This group involves claims 1, 12, and 17 of patent No. 702,013, claims 1 and 12 of 702,014, and claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of patent 702,015.

A description of the defendant’s apparatus and practice was furnished by the defendant and offered in evidence by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9, and one of plaintiffs’ illustrative drawings, which are attached hereto, show the form of construction of the defendant’s plant.

[87]*87Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9, Perspective View of Defendant’s Tank.

[88]*88 kWvRoJnMWjpVj0ajDFy8KYpbko04MzR

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

Related

National-Fruit Products Co. v. C. H. Musselman Co.
8 F. Supp. 994 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1934)
American Tri-Ergon Corp. v. Altoona Publix Theaters, Inc.
5 F. Supp. 32 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1933)
Kawneer Co. v. McHugh
51 F.2d 560 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1931)
Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
284 F. 645 (Third Circuit, 1922)
Window Glass Mach. Co. v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co.
46 F.2d 484 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1921)
Okmulgee Window Glass Co. v. Window Glass Mach. Co.
265 F. 626 (Eighth Circuit, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
266 F. 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/window-glass-mach-co-v-smethport-window-glass-co-pawd-1917.