NEW PROCESS FERMENTATION CO. NEW PROCESS FERMENTATION CO. (Oircuit Court, E. D. PennsylfJania. 1. PROCESB FOR MAKING BEER-INFRINGEMEN'l
V.
BALTZ. BALTZ.O
289
January 18, 1882.) I
Letters patent No. 215,679, for a new and useful apparatus and improvement in processes for making beer, held not to be infringed by the use of the Guth patented bung after the casks are bunged, simply for the purpose of racking off the beer from the shavings casks and relieving them from the excessive pressure of carbonic acid gas.
Final Hearing on Pleadings and Proof. Bill for injunction against infringement of letters patent No. 215,679, dated May 20, 1874, for a new and useful apparatus and improvement in processes for making beer. The answer denied both the novelty and the infringement. The evidence showed that in the manufacture of the beer after the casks containing the beer were bunged respondent used the bung patented by Henry Guth, in letters patent No. 225,368, for the purpose of racking off the beer from the shavings casks and relieving them from excessive pressure. The principal question raised was whether, in using this bung, respondent infringed complainant's patent. Banning cf: Banning, F. W. Cotzhausen, and P. C. Dyrenfol'th, for complainants. John Dolman, for respondent. McKENNAN, C. J. Although the answer denies the validity of the patent on which this suit is founded, the respondent's counsel has confined his discussion of the case to the question of infringement, and that is the only question which we deem it necessary to consider. The only proof in support of the allegation of infringement produced by the complainant is the testimony of Mathias Hoffman, but, unaided by the presumption arising from the absence of any proof on the other side, it could not be regarded as sufficient to acquit the complainant of the burden which rests upon it. It is answered fully, however, by the testimony of John Birken stock. From 1873 to 1879 he was assistant foreman at the respo ndent's brewery, and after the latter date was the brewer. He had responsible charge of the manufacture of beer, and the whole process was conducted under his supervision and dil'ection. He distinctly negatives the use of any part of the process described and covered by the complainant's patent. _Reported by Frank P. Priclnrd, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar.
v.10,no.2-19
PEDKBAL REPORTED.
The patented process provides for the treatment of beer when it is in the Kraueaen stage by holding it under automatically controllable pressure of carbonic acid gas by appropriate mechanical devices. When this stage ends the process is fully accomplished, and, in the understanding of the trade, the Krauesen stage terminates when the casksc6ntaining the liquid are Qunged. , Now, although it is admitted', that the respondents use the Guth patented bung, by means of which the complainant's process may be practiced, yet it iR satisfactorily shown by all the evidence that it is not used as long as the beer works out,of the bung-hole of the shavin,gs cask{l, but only when the are bunged, and,so when the patented process is, by its express)irp.itation, inapplicable. And this bung is not;8ven to produce any result contemplated, by the complainant's process, but only off the beer from the llhavings casks, and ,as a means of relieving them frqm I!-n excessive pressure of carbo,nio acid gas. Weare, therefore, of opinion that the respondent is, not ShOWIl to have used the complainant's proclils8, and so to have infringed iis patent, a:Q,(i that the bill must be dismissed, with costa.
SPILL ". CKLLULOID MANup'a Co.(Oircuit Oourl, 8. D.NtJUJ York. Jauuary 25,1882.)
L LETTERS PATENT No. 97,454-CONSTRuCTION OJ'. Letters patent No. 97,454 contains no suggestion that camphor itself, or a solution of camphor in any thing which would dissolve it, is a solvent of xyloidine, Said patent is neither infringed by the use of wood alcohol in conjuncc tion with camphor, if suid wood alcohol is the same thing as wood naphtha, as BUch use is described in' Parke's patent, No. 1,313, nor if it be a new article, discovered since the date of the in said patent 97,454. The claim of said patent is expressly liInited to that alcohol which is spirits of wine, and does not cover methyl alcohol.
InEquity. Motion for injunction. H. M. Ruggles, for plaintiff. W. D. Shipman and, H. Baldwin, Jr., for defendant. BLATCHFORD, C. J. There is no suggestion in the specification of No. 9'7 1 454 that the plaintiff discovered that camphor itself, or a -Reported by S. Nelson White, Esq., of the New York bar.