Citations
- 27 F. Supp. 737
Full opinion text
BYERS, District Judge.
Hearing on exceptions to report and findings made by Special Master to whom was referred the question of alleged violation of injunction and infringement by the individual defendants, William E. Popkin in the first cause and Michael Miller in the second.
The Special Master has found infringement as follows:
As to Popkin: Patent No. 1,573,200 (Process) at least as to claims 6, 7, 19, and 22. Patent No. 1,564,378 (Product) at least as to claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 14, 16, 21, and 22.
As to Miller: Patent No. 1,564,378 at least as to claims 11, 12, 14, and 16.
That each defendant has violated the injunction heretofore issued and served upon him.
The plaintiff excepts to the failure to find violations of other claims, and the defendants to the findings as made, on the general theory that no infringement is established by the evidence.
The findings result from a report which sufficiently discusses the issues and the testimony to render unnecessary any extended comment upon either, in the disposition of these exceptions.
The scope and status of the patents have been expounded in Steinfur Patents Corporation v. J. Meyerson, Inc., et al., D.C., 56 F.2d 372, modified and affirmed sub nom Steinfur Patents Corporation v. William Beyer, Inc., et al., 2 Cir., 62 F.2d 238.
They have to do with a process for bleaching and dyeing furs (No. 1,573,200) and with the furs so bleached and dyed (No.1,564,378).
Validity and infringement were established in the above case, and the issue now presented has to do solely with the extent to which these defendants are to be deemed to be in contempt for having disobeyed the injunction issued and served upon them in connection with that decision.
It is necessary to recall that the plaintiff’s process, stated broadly, consists in treating animal skins with ferrous sulphate (FeSOá. 7H2O) and then bleaching them by the application of hydrogen peroxide, after which they may be dyed as desired.
The defendants assert that their process avoids infringement because the ferrous sulphate used in the first stage of operation is changed, by intermediate introduction of an undisclosed chemical agent, into ferric sulphate (Fe2(SO