Among the licensees are Allegheny Steel Company, American Steel & Wire Company, Crucible Steel Company, International Nickel Company, and Weirton Steel Company. Despite the present industrial conditions, Weirton Steel Company has for months past operated its Steckel mill 24 hours a day and has two more such mills on order. The mills are used, not only in the United States, but also in foreign countries, such as England and Sweden.
(44) In addition to the cold mills above referred to, plaintiff has built a hot mill which has been in successful operation at the Briar Hill works of the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company. In this hot mill the work rolls are driven.
(45) Up to August 31, 1932, licensees had paid royalties aggregating over $132,000, most of the royalties being paid at the rate of 5 per cent. of the selling price of the product.
(46) At the present time the plaintiff has pending negotiations for more than $4,500,000 worth of mills, and has been visited by practically every important steel manufacturer in the United States and from a large number of foreign countries. A number of foreign manufacturers have come to the United States especially to see the Steckel mill, and have spent two to six weeks studying it.
(47) Working rolls, backing rolls, and roller bearings were in the art prior to the Steckel invention. Steckel was the first person to adjust, apportion, and size these elements in a rolling mill so that the cold rolling of high-ratio strip steel could be done with high speed. Steckel discovered a new combination of old elements which produced a new and useful result.
(48) Steckel conceived the invention contained in the patent in suit in July, 1922, and was diligent thereafter in reducing it to practice.
(49) In 1909 Daniel A. Keating designed and installed at the plant of the American Tube & Stamping Company, Bridgeport, Conn., a mill having working rolls 2" in diameter and backing rolls 4" in diameter; the two backing rolls having necks 2 1/2" in diameter. Two supplementary backing rolls were provided for the purpose of holding the working rolls in line under the backing rolls. The backing rolls as designed were mounted in brass bearings which were subsequently changed to quill type bearings.
(50) The American Tube & Stamping Company's 2" mill was used about a year. It had little, if any, commercial success. Some of its product, by reason of buckling and wavy edges, had to be further processed to make it suitable for commercial use. It was superseded by the company's 3" mill.
(51) In 1910 and 1911 Keasting built and installed in the American Tube & Stamping Company's plant at Bridgeport, Conn., five rolling mills with driven working rolls 3" in diameter; each working roll being backed by two backing rolls 5" in diameter. The backing rolls having necks 3" in diameter mounted with quill type bearings.
(52) The quill type bearing consists of an outer shell surrounding the roll neck; the annular space between neck and shell being filled with long, slender pins.
(53) The American Tube & Stamping Company has installed eight of the 3" mills aforesaid. Some of them have been in use since 1910 or 1911 without change of design.
(54) In 1920 the Spencer Wire Company at Worcester, Mass., built and installed in its plant two mills identical in design with that of the 3" mills of the American Tube & Stamping Company.
(55) Cooling water is employed in the backing rolls of the American Tube & Stamping Company's mills for cooling purposes.
(56) Heavy pressure on the pins causes generation of heat and wear of the pins so that they have to be removed and replaced about once a week.
(57) The Keating mill is a slow speed mill on account of heat. In ordinary draughts it runs about 160 feet per minute.
(58) The Keating mill was well known by the trade and was known by the Patent Office Examiners when they passed upon the applications of the patent in suit and that of Biggert and Johnson.
(59) The patent in suit is not anticipated by the Kriwan patent 1,360,959, or by the Coryell patent, 1,737,185, or by any of the patents or publications cited by defendant.
(60) The defendant constructed a 4-high roller bearing mill for the Rome Brass & Copper Company, which was put in operation in December, 1925. This was the first mill constructed by defendant in accordance with the Biggert and Johnson invention as set forth in patent 1,654,235, which was issued December 27, 1927.
(61) The Rome mill when placed in operation was in a highly experimental stage.
(62) There is no evidence of the date that the Rome mill was placed in successful commercial operation.
(63) The first knowledge that Steckel and plaintiff had of the Rome mill was in the late summer or fall of 1926.
(64) Defendant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Rome mill was in public use for two years prior to May 22, 1928.
(65) The firm of Byrnes, Stabbins, Parmelee & Blenko have been the attorneys for Steckel and plaintiff in all matters relating to the patent in suit from the date of the original application, June 30, 1923, to the present time. Prior to June 30, 1923, and continuing until about January 1, 1929, the same firm of attorneys represented the defendant in its patent matters, which included the application for the Biggert and Johnson patent 1,654,235, which contained common subject-matter with the patent in suit.
(66) The Steckel application and the Biggert and Johnson application were handled by different attorneys of the Byrnes, Stebbins, Parmelee & Blenko firm for some time without the knowledge of either attorney that the other application was being handled by the firm aforesaid. Upon discovery that the firm was handling both applications, which contained a common subject-matter, the plaintiff and defendant were notified. The attorneys offered to withdraw as attorneys for both parties. This offer was refused by both parties, and as a result Byrnes, Stebbins, Parmelee & Blenko continued as the attorneys for both plaintiff and defendant with their knowledge and consent until some time in January, 1929.
(67) While Byrnes, Stebbins, Parmelee & Blenko were attorneys for plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff and defendant executed a license contract bearing date June 20, 1927, claims 1 to 4 and 6 to 13 of the Biggert and Johnson patent were added to the Steckel application, and Steckel was decreed priority of invention over the Biggert and Johnson invention in interference proceedings.
(68) There is no evidence that the firm of Byrnes, Stebbins, Parmelee & Blenko were guilty of fraud in their dealings with either the plaintiff or defendant in the matters aforesaid.
(69) The four mills complained of as to infringement are: Illinois Steel Company -- continuous hot mill; Otis Steel Company -- continuous hot mill; Wallingford Steel Company -- single stand cold mill; and defendant's Youngstown mill -- single stand cold mill. Each of said mills was in whole or in part either manufactured, sold, or used by defendant subsequent to October 21, 1930, the date of issue of the patent in suit, and prior to March 7, 1931, the date of filing of the bill of complaint.
(70) The ratios of the materials which these mills were designed to roll and are capable of producing are as follows:
Illinois mill 720 to 1
Otis mill 865 to 1
Wallingford mill 1200 to 1
Youngstown mill 1400 to 1
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.