The opinion of the court was delivered by: SCHOONMAKER
This is a patent infringement suit. From bill, answer, and proofs, we find the following facts:
1. The plaintiff-corporation is the owner of three United States patents in suit, i.e.,
(a) Johnson patent No. 1,388,434, granted August 23, 1921, for method and apparatus for butt-welding their gage-tubing, of which patent claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 17, and 19 are in suit.
(b) Johnson patent No. 1,435,306, granted November 14, 1922, for butt-welded thin-walled tubing, of which patent claims 3, 5, 6, and 9 are in suit.
(c) Belmont patent No. 1,611,875, granted December 28, 1926, for improvement in welding apparatus, of which patent claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are in suit.
2. Said patents are valid and have been infringed by the defendant.
We conclude as a matter of law as follows:
1. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in its bill of complaint.
No extended discussion is necessary as to the validity of the two Johnson patents, because the Circuit Court of Appeals of this Circuit had held that they are valid. Steel & Tubes, Inc. v. General Tube Co., 61 F.2d 475. We are bound by that opinion. It may be noted that these two patents were also held valid in three other suits. Elyria Iron & Steel Co. v. Mohegan Tube Co., Inc. 7 F.2d 827 (C.C.A.2); Steel and Tubes, Inc. v. Greenpoint Metallic Bed Co., 37 F.2d 172 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.); Steel & Tubes, Inc. v. S. Jackson Tube Co., Inc., 42 F.2d 760 (D.C.E.D.N.Y.).
There seems to be only one question raised in the instant case that was not mentioned by the Circuit Court of Appeals in Steel & Tubes, Inc. v. General Tube Co., supra, and that is the question of abandonment to be public of the Johnson product growing out of a contract between the Simmons Company and the American Moulding Company dated July 27, 1917. We do not think that amounts to a bar ...