|
Description: |
| Litigation involving this patent:
Pitts v. Wemple
Summary:
"This was an action on the case tried by Judge Drummond and a jury, for the infringement of a patent issued to Hiram A. and John A. Pitts, December 29, 1837 [No. 542], and assigned to plaintiff for “a new and useful improvement in machines for threshing and cleaning grain.” The specification of Pitts set forth that the inventors “had invented a new and improved combination of machinery for separating grain from the straw and chaff as it proceeds from the threshing machine.” The chief feature in their invention consisted in an endless belt or apron, proceeding from the threshing machine to the fan-mill, which was of a peculiar construction. The apron was provided with a series of narrow wooden compartments, of a sufficient height above the apron to permit the grain, which was separated. from the straw and chaff by the agitation of the machine when in operation, to fall through into the cells. By this means the straw and chaff were earned along on the tops of the boxes, and kept from being commingled with the grain below, until, by the action of the machine, the compartments were carried forward and emptied the separated grain into the fan-mill, and the straw and chaff passed off over the end of the-apron. Previous to the invention of the plaintiff, an endless apron with cells or buckets, had been used as a carrier, or elevator, to carry flour and other materials from one point to another. The defendant put in evidence a patent issued to Samuel Lane, April 6, 1831. The Lane patent contained an endless apron proceeding from the threshing machine to an endless sieve. The Lane apron had no compartments or cells, but was a smooth apron, and was used in his machine-to carry forward the threshed grain as it came from the thresher, mixed with the-straw and chaff to an endless sieve, by tlie agitation of which sieve the grain was separated from the straw and chaff, which latter were cast off over the end of the sieve, while the sifted grain was conducted from the sieve to the fan-mill. In the defendant’s machine there was also an endless apron, which carried the threshed grain to a peculiarly constructed sieve, secured to Wemple by letters patent, granted July 13, 1844, and the sifted grain was conducted from the-sieve to the fan-mill. It further appeared that the defendant had sometimes used slats about half an inch in thickness, nailed to-the apron, and placed about a foot apart', to give it stiffness and prevent it from sagging at the sides. In addition to these features of the machine, there was what was termed a side elevator in the Pitts machine, which constituted the fourth claim of the patent. This consisted of a larger sieve extending beyond the upper sieve, into which the light grain or tailings which pass over the sieve was received, and from which lower sieve it was conducted through a shoe underneath and a spout to an elevator by which it was taken up and emptied into the upper sieve of the machine, for further sifting. In the Wemple machine there were also a lower projecting sieve and shoe and spout, through which the grain received by them was poured into a side elevator, and was carried forward and emptied into the thresher of the machine. The claims of the plaintiff’s patent are set forth in the charge of the court."
Pitts v. Whitman
Summary:
“This was a case for the infringement of a patent granted to Hiram A. Pitts and John A. Pitts, as inventors of “a new and useful improvement in the machine for threshing and cleaning grain.” The patent was dated on the 29th of December, A. D. 1837 [No. 542]. The writ was dated on 3d of October, 1840; and the plaintiff in his declaration alleged an assignment by John A. Pitts to himself of all his (John A. Pitts*) right in the invention, for, in, and within the state of Maine; and the breach alleged was, that the defendant [Luther Whitman] after the assignment, unlawfully made, used, and vended the said improvement in the said state of Maine. The cause was tried upon the general issue before the district judge, at the last May term; and a verdict was then taken for the plaintiff.
In order to understand the case, it is necessary to state, that the patent was for “a new and useful improvement in the machine for threshing and cleaning grain,” and the specification annexed to the letters-patent was in the following terms: “To all whom it may concern: Be it known, that we, John A. Pitts and Hiram A. Pitts, of Winthrop, in the county of Kennebec and state of Maine, have invented a new and improved combination of machinery for separating grain from the straw and chaff, as it proceeds from the threshing machine; and we do hereby declare, that the following is a full and exact description thereof.” The specification then describes the invention, referring to an accompanying drawing. The claim was as follows:
“(1) We claim as our invention the construction and use of an endless apron, divided into troughs or cells, in a machine for cleaning grain, operating substantially in the way described.
(2) we claim also the revolving rake for shaking out the straw, and the roller for throwing it off the machine, in combination with such a revolving apron, as set forth.
(3) we claim the guard slats, E, in combination with a belt constructed substantially as above described.
(4) the combination of the additional sieve and shoe with the elevator for carrying up the light grain in the manner and for the purpose herein set forth.”
Pitts v. Hall
Summary:
"This was an action on the case for the infringement of letters patent [No. 542] granted to the plaintiffs [John A. and Hiram A. Pitts] in the year 1837, and extended for seven years, in 1851, under the 18th section of the act of July 4,1836 (0 Stat 124). The declaration alleged that the defendant [Joseph Hall] had, unlawfully and without the consent of the plaintiffs, made, used, and vended to others to be used, large numbers of the machines patented to the plaintiffs, in violation of the exclusive right granted to the plaintiffs by the letters patent and the extension thereof. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also a special plea, in which he set up that the plaintiff Hiram A. Pitts, after the granting of the letters patent and during their original term, assigned to the plaintiff John A. Pitts, all his- title to the patent and the rights thereby secured, for the states of New York and Michigan; that thereafter, and in the year 1846, John A. Pitts did, by an agreement in writing, transfer to the defendant the one equal undivided half part of all the rights secured by the patent for the states of Michigan and New York; and that it was, by the agreement, agreed by John A. Pitts with the defendant, that in case of the renewal of the patent, or of the obtaining of other or further letters patent for the invention, after the expiration of the existing patent, the defendant should have and be entitled to the equal undivided fourth part of all the rights and benefits that should be secured, by such further or renewed letters patent, for the states of New York and Michigan, on paying to John A. Pitts the proportional one-fourth part of the expenses of obtaining the further or renewed letters patent —that is to say, to be proportioned as the value of the right for the states of New York and Michigan should be to that for the other states and territories of the United States; and the defendant to pay the one-fourth part of the proportion for the states of New York and Michigan. The plea also set forth, that the agreement had been duly recorded in the patent office at Washington; that immediately after the extension of the patent, the defendant called upon and saw John A. Pitts, and requested him to inform him, the defendant, what the expenses of obtaining the extension of the patent had been, and stated to him, in substance, that he was ready and willing, and then and there offered, to pay him the proportion of expenses mentioned in the agreement to be paid to John A. Pitts by the defendant; that John A. Pitts then and there declined and refused to inform him what the amount of such expenses had been, although the defendant then was and ever since had been ready and willing to pay John A. Pitts his just proportion of said expenses; that the defendant was wholly ignorant, at the time, of the request and offer to pay, and still was ignorant, of the amount of expenses of obtaining the extension, which ignorance of the defendant was, at said time, well known to John A. Pitts; and that John A. Pitts so declined and refused to make known the amount of such expenses to the defendant, with a view to put it out of the power of the defendant to pay him the just and proper proportion of the expenses, according to the terms of the agreement. To this plea there was a general demurrer and a joinder."
|
|
