Pacific Coast Borax Co. v. American Potash & Chemical Corp.

Plaintiffs in their suit declared upon two patents which they claimed had been infringed by defendant. The first patent described a process for recovering potash (KC1) from alkaline deposits, the second a process for recovering borax (NaaBáOr) from like deposits. The particular source of material intended to be worked on was the brine of Searles Lake in California, which holds in different proportions metallic and acid constituents.

The special master, to whom the case was referred, presented a remarkably well reasoned report which showed a thorough understanding of the facts. He held the claims of plaintiffs’ patents valid but not infringed, and recommended dismissal of the bill of complaint with costs. To this report plaintiffs took a number of exceptions, the gist of them being that the master had erred in his interpretation of the patent claims, particularly that he construed too narrowly claim 1 of the first patent (No. 1,215,544) and claim 5 of the second patent (No. 1,215,-545).

I have devoted much time to a study of the case. I have re-examined the oral argument of counsel as recorded in the reporter’s transcript and carefully considered the quite voluminous briefs…