Campbell Mach. Co. v. Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co.

Campbell Mach. Co. v. Goodyear Shoe Mach. Co. (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. August 8, 1891.) Patents for Inventions — Sewing-Machines—Infringement. The nineteenth claim of letters patent No. 253,166, issued January 81, 1882, to Duncan H. Campbell, for an improvement in sewing-machines, consisting of a combination of a hook-needle, thread-arm, and thread-eye, with operating mechanism for the arm and eye, which causes the eye to first carry and deliver the thread to the arm, and thence deliver it to the needle, and also causes the arm to merely retain and release the thread delivered to it, so that the arm is prevented from abrading the thread, is infringed by awelting-maohine and a stitching-machine having the same combination of needle, arm, and eye, with somewhat different mechanism, performing the same function, the only difference being that in the welt-machine the relative motions of the arm and eye are slightly different, and in the stitching-machine the arm is stationary, and the motion, which, in the Campbell machine, transfers the thread to the arm, is given to the eye. In Equity. Bill to restrain infringement of patent. Maynadier & Beach, for complainant. C. Smith and Elmer P. Howe, for defendants. [MAJORITY — Nelson, J.] Nelson, J. The nineteenth claim of the plaintiff’s patent, issued to Duncan H. Campbell, January 31, 1882, No. 253,156, for improvements in sewing-machines, is as follows: "(19) The combination, substantially as hereinbefore described, of a hook-needle, a thread-arm, a thread-eye, and operating mechanism for the arm and eye, which causes said eye to first carry and deliver the thread to the arm, and thence deliver thread to the needle, and also causes the arm to merely retain and release the thread delivered to it by the eye, whereby said arm is prevented from abrading the thread, as set forth.” The defendants are engaged in making and selling two kinds of sewing-machines, one of which is a welt-machine and the other a stitching-machine. Both these machines have in combination a hook-needle, a thread-arm, a thread-eye, and operating mechanism, and both perform exactly the same function as that accomplished by tho Campbell machine. — that is, the forming of a loop of slack thread behind the needle, in such manner as to avoid abrasion of the thread by the thread-arm. The only difference is that in the case of the welt-machine the relative motions of the thread-arm and thread-eye are slightly different from those in the Campbell machine, and in the case of the stitching-machine the thread-arm is stationary, and the motion, which, in the Campbell machine, transfers the thread to the thread-arm, is given to the thread-eye; and in both tiie machines the operating mechanism varies somewhat from that of the Campbell machine. I am of opinion that the welt-machine and the stitcliing-machine are both plain infringements of the Campbell patent. They have the same elements in substantially the same combination, and produce exactly the same result. Tho variations which the defendants have introduced into their machines are altogether too trivial to take them out of the scope of the Campbell patent. The plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for an injunction and for an account; and it is so ordered.