
    COLUMBIA MACHINE & STOPPER CORP. v. ADRIANCE MACH. WORKS, Inc., et al. SAME v. FERD. NEUMER, Inc.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    November 14, 1916.)
    No. 13.
    Patents <&wkey;328 — Infringement—Bottle Capping Machine.
    The Lawson patent, No. 1,095,406, for a bottle capping machine, held infringed by a modified structure built by defendants.
    Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York.
    Suits in equity by the Columbia Machine & Stopper Corporation against the Adriance Machine Works, Incorporated, and Benjamin Adriance and against Eerd. Neumer, Incorporated. From orders granting supplemental injunction, defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    For former opinions, see (D. C.) 226 Fed. 203; 226 Fed. 455, 141 C. C. A. 198.
    The following is the opinion of Veeder, District Judge, in tire court below:
    I have no doubt of the validity and propriety of the complainant’s procedure under the circumstances. After all, the issue must be determined by a comparison of the two mechanical structures.
    In their altered machine the defendants employ, instead of a vertical shaft extending through the base for the purpose of rotating the bottle support, a shaft which is cut off above the base, but which is positively connected to an auxiliary shaft extending into the base for the purpose of rotating the bottle support, thereby performing the identical function which the lower part of the main shaft performed in the machine adjudged to be an infiingement. There has been no change in the manner in which the cam and concentric bottle support are rotated in the defendants’ new machine. The cam is secured to the main shaft, and the bottle support, which is concentric with the main shaft, is rotated through a gear near its periphery by the auxiliary shaft, which is geared to the main shaft and partalies of its motion. The complainant’s combination has been held to be novel and meritorious, and as sucli entitled to a fair range of equivalents.
    I am of opinion that this machine infringes claim 6 of the patent in suit, and the complainant’s motion is granted.
    Alfred C. Coxe, Jr., of New York City, and John W. .Steward, of Paterson, N. J., for appellant Adriance Co.
    Tomlinson, Coxe & Tomlinson, of New York City, for appellant Ferd. Neumer, Inc.
    Henry D. Williams, of New York City, for appellee.
    Before WARD and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and MAYER, District Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Decrees affirmed. 
      <@=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
     