PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



petersen garand lawsuit .pdf


Original filename: petersen-garand lawsuit.pdf

This PDF 1.3 document has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 21/10/2010 at 05:35, from IP address 69.231.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 1115 times.
File size: 151 KB (46 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


Page 1

2 of 100 DOCUMENTS
JOHN D. PEDERSEN v. THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 45182, 45196
UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS
109 Ct. Cl. 226; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51

October 6, 1947, Decided
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:

[**1] Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied.

SYLLABUS
On the Proofs
Patents; semi-automatic rifle; patent license contract. -- Where under the agreement of January 3, 1930, between
plaintiff and defendant, the Government agreed to pay plaintiff a specified royalty if the Army manufactured a gun
developed by Pedersen; and where during the period that the agreement was in effect and prior to its termination by
defendant on June 30, 1939, the Government manufactured or had manufactured for it 13,024 rifles known as the
Garand or M-1 rifle; and where it is found that the gun manufactured by the defendant was not the arm developed by
Pedersen; it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to recover under the terms of the agreement.
Patents. -- A license contract, under which a licensee agrees to pay a royalty for the privilege of manufacturing a
patented article, may estop the licensee from questioning the validity of the patent held by the licensor but the
agreement in the instant case, No. 45196, was an agreement to pay a specified royalty if the Army manufactured a gun
developed by Pedersen.
Patents; alleged infringement; claims held to be invalid. -- Where [**2] after the cancelation of the license
agreement on June 30, 1939, and just prior to May 6, 1940, the filing date of plaintiff's petition in the patent case, No.
45182, the defendant manufactured or used at least one Garand or M-1 rifle, together with a Garand cartridge clip,
which structure is alleged to infringe the three Pedersen patents in issue in the instant suits; but where the claims of the
rifle patent alleged to be infringed are found to be invalid (claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35 and 39); and where the
claims of the Pedersen clip patent alleged to be infringed are found to be invalid (claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 10); and where
claim 3, if interpreted broadly enough to be infringed is found to be invalid; and where claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the
Pedersen clip and follower patent, alleged to be infringed, are found to be invalid; it is held that plaintiff is not entitled
to recover.
Patents. -- Having concluded that the Pedersen rifle was not adopted by the Army and that the Garand or M-1 rifle,
which was adopted, does not come within the terms of any valid claims of the Pedersen patent in suit; the court holds
that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover either royalties [**3] under his contract or compensation for the use of his
patented inventions.

Page 2
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **3

COUNSEL: Mr. George P. Dike for the plaintiff. Mr. Cedric W. Porter and Messrs. Dike, Calver & Porter were on
the briefs.
Mr. H. L. Godfrey, with whom was Mr. Acting Assistant Attorney General Peyton Ford, for the defendant.
JUDGES: Madden, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. Whitaker, Judge; Littleton, Judge; and Jones, Chief
Justice, concur.
OPINION BY: MADDEN
OPINION
[*227] The Reporter's statement of the case:
In suit No. 45196 filed May 23, 1940, plaintiff seeks to recover royalties for an alleged breach of a patent license
contract for the use of his inventions in semi-automatic rifles prior to June 30, 1939, the date of cancellation by the
United States of the contract.
In suit No. 45182 filed May 6, 1940, plaintiff seeks compensation for the alleged unauthorized use and manufacture
of certain of his inventions covered by United States patents for the period subsequent to June 30, 1939, the date of
cancellation by the United States of its license contract to the plaintiff.
The rifles manufactured by the United States and on which plaintiff seeks royalties for [**4] the first period and
compensation for the subsequent period, are the M-1 or Garand semi-automatic [*228] rifles used by the United States
Army in World War II. Since both suits relate to the same subject-matter and involve many of the same facts, the
testimony was incorporated in one record and the two suits were consolidated by the court on June 14, 1946, upon
motion.
The court, having made the foregoing introductory statement, entered special findings of fact as follows:
1. Plaintiff, John D. Pedersen, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Jackson, Wyoming. His occupation
since 1901 has been that of a gun designer and he has become well known as such in the industry. From 1903 to 1923
he was associated with the Remington Arms Company, of Ilion, New York, during which period he designed many
Remington rifles, shotguns and pistols. He was not employed by the Remington Arms Company but acted as an
independent designer for it on a royalty basis.
2. Military guns of the shoulder type may be divided into three general classes, i. e., the hand-operated rifle, the
semi-automatic rifle, and the light machine gun. All of these possess certain generic [**5] elements in common but
their mechanisms function differently.
3. The hand-operated rifle. -- This is best exemplified by the Springfield rifle which was the standard infantry
weapon in use by the United States Army during World War I and several years subsequent thereto.
The basic elements of this rifle consist of a barrel enlarged at its rear end to form a cartridge-receiving chamber.
Located back of this chamber is a reciprocating or sliding member known as a "breech bolt." When pushed forward
against the rear end of the barrel this member may be rotated about its axis so that it locks in position and holds a
cartridge in the chamber. A firing pin is axially located in the bolt and is actuated by a spring to impinge on the primer
of the cartridge and fire it the same when the trigger is pulled.
After firing, the rifleman first rotates and unlocks the bolt by means of a side projecting member and then pulls the
bolt rearwardly. An ejector mechanism engages the empty cartridge case as the bolt is moved back and withdraws it
from the chamber and ejects it. When the bolt is again moved [*229] forward by the soldier it picks up a fresh

Page 3
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *229; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **5

cartridge from a magazine [**6] chamber located below the bolt and pushes it into the chamber. Upon the bolt being
then rotated to locking position the gun is again ready to be fired, the firing mechanism having been cocked into firing
position by the previous rearward movement of the bolt.
When the magazine is empty it is refilled by a new charge of five cartridges by means of a device known as a
stripping clip. This clip consists of a strip of sheet metal of sufficient length to span the bases of a row of five cartridges.
The two edges of this strip are bent over to form grooves, which resiliently engage the rims of the cartridges to hold
them in place. The clip is slightly arcuate in shape from top to bottom, due to the fact that high-powered cartridges are
tapered and when stacked upon each other in a row in the clip, the bases form an arc.
To reload the magazine the rifleman pulls the bolt to its rearward position and inserts the lower end of the clip into
an opening above the magazine chamber. The clip does not go into the magazine chamber but the row of cartridges is
pushed or "stripped" from the clip down into the magazine by the operator's thumb. The empty clip is then discarded
and the bolt closed.
[**7] 4. The semi-automatic rifle. -- This is the type of rifle involved in the present suits. It has the same basic
elements just referred to in connection with the hand-operated rifle and has additional mechanism whereby energy from
the firing of a cartridge actuates the elements of the gun. When the trigger is pulled, gas pressure in the barrel or recoil
of the cartridge in the chamber sets in motion mechanism which unlocks and moves back the bolt, ejecting the empty
cartridge shell and cocking the firing pin mechanism. Then under the influence of a spring which has been compressed
during the rearward movement, the bolt moves forward to its firing position, driving a fresh cartridge from the magazine
forward into the chamber and leaving the gun ready for firing again upon the pulling of the trigger. The semi-automatic
gun thus fires one shot upon each pull of the trigger until the magazine is empty.
[*230] Included in the advantages of the semi-automatic over the hand-operated rifle are rapidity of fire and the
fact that the gunner does not have to take his eyes off the target or the gun from his shoulder in order to actuate the
breech mechanism for ejecting the [**8] spent shell and introducing a fresh one. This is of special value in military use
in connection with camouflaged or partly concealed targets.
5. The light machine gun. -- The machine gun is a type of firearm which fires continuously as long as the trigger is
held back. Until the magazine of cartridges is exhausted the rate of fire is several hundred shots per minute.
Because of the danger of the spontaneous exploding of a cartridge from the heat generated by the high rate of fire,
the operating cycle is reversed from that of the semi-automatic gun. In the semi-automatic gun the cycle starts with the
breech closed and the chamber loaded with a fresh cartridge and ready to be fired upon the pulling of the trigger. In a
machine gun the cycle starts with an open breech bolt or partially open breech bolt which when released by the trigger
loads the cartridge into the chamber and fires it. Mechanism which is actuated either by gas pressure or recoil then
opens the breech bolt, ejects the cartridge, and inserts a new cartridge which is fired, this action continuing until the
trigger is released, when the breech bolt again assumes a partly open position with an empty chamber.
[**9] As compared with the hand-operated rifle or the semi-automatic rifle, the light machine gun or shoulder type
of machine gun is relatively inaccurate and is used largely at short ranges and to spray an area with bullets.
FINDINGS RELATING MORE PARTICULARLY TO THE CONTRACT CASE
6. On May 21, 1923 the plaintiff, John D. Pedersen, entered into a contract with the United States for the
development of a semi-automatic rifle, the pertinent portions of which are as follows:
****
That, whereas the contractor is a successful designer of automatic and semi-automatic hand arms, and
has been for a number of years working on the design of a semi-automatic shoulder rifle for Infantry use,

Page 4
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *230; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **9

and
[*231] Whereas, the United States desires to have manufactured a semi-automatic shoulder arm for
experimental purposes and test, and should the test prove the design to be a success, to secure a license to
manufacture the arm under such patents as the contractor has or may secure, and
Whereas, the contractor in consideration of the sum of ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000) will disclose
to the United States his prior studies toward the invention of such an arm, and will for the period of
[**10] one year actively engage in the completion of the invention and the supervision of the actual
construction of the arm, and
Whereas, the contractor is willing, should the arm be approved for adoption by the United States, to
grant the United States a license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, and use and sell in
accordance with existing laws arms according to his invention and design upon the conditions hereinafter
set forth.
Now, therefore, the parties to this agreement have mutually agreed, and by these presents, do
mutually covenant and agree with each other as follows:
Article I: The contractor agrees to disclose to the United States the work which he has already done
toward inventing and designing a semi-automatic shoulder rifle to meet the specifications set forth in
Schedule I, hereto attached. He shall for a period of one year from June 1, 1923, actively engage in the
completion of the design and invention of this arm and in the supervision of the work necessary to its
construction. The contractor agrees to give his best efforts to the production of a successful arm for the
period of one year from June 1, 1923.
Article II: The United States will furnish the necessary [**11] draftsmen and tool makers, and the
work of laying out the design and manufacturing the arm shall be done at such point as the Chief of
Ordnance may direct, with facilities and equipment owned by the United States.
Article III: As compensation to the contractor for performance of the agreement set forth in Article I,
he shall receive the sum of ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000), payable in equal monthly installments over
the period of one year, beginning June 1, 1923. He shall in addition receive allowances on account of
any travel directed by the Chief of Ordnance or his authorized representative in connection with this
work at the same rate and in the same amount as is allowed civilian employees of the Ordnance
Department when they perform travel in connection with work of the Ordnance Department.
[*232] Article IV: At the option of the United States the period of supervision by the contractor of
the design and construction of the arm may be extended for not to exceed one year from June 1, 1924,
but, if this option be exercised, the compensation to the contractor shall be increased in the same ratio as
the additional time bears to the first period of one year, and shall continue [**12] to be paid monthly.
The contractor shall also be paid travel allowances during this extended period in the same manner as
before set forth.
Article V: The right and title to any patents secured by the contractor upon inventions disclosed to
the United States in connection with the development and manufacture of the semi-automatic rifle, or
upon any invention which the contractor may make during the period of the design and construction of
the rifle, shall be and remain exclusively with the contractor, except that in consideration of this
agreement and the payments which may be made under it, there shall be granted the United States the
first option upon an exclusive license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, and use and sell in
accordance with existing law, arms incorporating the inventions and developments disclosed under this
contract, or any patented improvements thereon subsequently granted said contractor, which option must,

Page 5
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *232; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **12

however, be exercised within six months after a complete and satisfactory test by the Ordnance
Department, United States Army, and not later than twelve months after the termination of the period of
supervision by the contractor provided for in [**13] Articles I and IV of this contract.
This exclusive license shall permit the United States to manufacture or cause to be manufactured,
and use and sell in accordance with existing law, this arm upon payment to the party of the first part of a
royalty of One Dollar and Twenty Five Cents ($ 1.25) per gun up to a maximum of Four Hundred
Thousand (400,000) guns, after which royalty payments shall cease, and the United States shall then
have a non-exclusive license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, and to use and sell in
accordance with existing law the arms in consideration of the prior payments. Royalty payments under
this license shall be made as soon as practicable after the first day of January and July in each year for all
arms manufactured during the preceding six months.
If, however, the United States after exercising its option of securing an exclusive license shall not
within a period of four (4) years enter upon routine production with standard manufacturing equipment,
then the exclusive [*233] license shall cease and the United States shall then have a non-exclusive
license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured and use and sell in accordance with existing [**14]
laws the arms. The royalty payments under this non-exclusive license shall then be the same as those
specified for the exclusive license in paragraph two of Article V of this contract.
Article VI: The name "Pedersen" shall appear on each arm manufactured by the United States under
this agreement.
Article VII: The United States shall have the right to manufacture spare parts for replacement and
maintenance of arms manufactured under the above license without payment of royalty.
Article VIII: The Government shall have the right to renew the license above defined from year to
year, commencing July 1 of each year, and ending June 30 of the following year. It is understood and
agreed that an election by the Government to continue the license for succeeding years shall be implied,
unless the licensee shall, by written notice not later than May 1 of any year, notify the licensor of its
election to terminate the license.
Article IX: Price: A total of ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000), payable in equal monthly installments
over the period of one year, beginning June 1, 1923 for compensation as provided in Article III of this
contract. * * *
****
Article XIV: Adjustment of claims [**15] and disputes: Except as otherwise specifically provided
in this contract, any claims, doubts, or disputes which may arise under this contract or as to its
performance or nonperformance, and which are not disposed of by mutual agreement, shall be referred to
the Chief of Ordnance for determination. The Contractor, if not satisfied with such determination may
submit the matter, by petition, to the Secretary of War or his duly authorized representative or
representatives. The decision of the Secretary of War or of such duly authorized representative or
representatives shall be final and conclusive on all matters submitted for determination. Any sum or
sums allowed to the Contractor under the provisions of this article shall be paid by the United States as
part of the cost of the articles or work herein contracted for and shall be deemed to be within the
contemplation of this contract.
****

Page 6
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *233; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **15

[*234] 7. The plaintiff on or about June 1, 1923, pursuant to this contract, entered upon the performance of his
duties at Springfield Armory, Springfield, Massachusetts, as an independent contractor, the Armory providing all the
necessary facilities.
On May 20, 1924, Pedersen's [**16] original contract was extended to June 1, 1925, under the option given in
Article IV of the contract. On June 25, 1925, Pedersen and the United States entered into a second contract (plaintiff's
exhibit 15) for a period of a year, and into third and fourth contracts (plaintiff's exhibits 16 and 17) dated June 1, 1926
and June 1, 1927.
In April 1928 the fourth contract was canceled by mutual consent of the parties, to enable plaintiff to go to England
in connection with some design work. He returned the latter part of July 1928 and on August 27, 1928 entered into a
fifth contract (plaintiff's exhibit 20), the expiration date of which was December 31, 1928.
On January 2, 1929 plaintiff entered into a sixth contract (plaintiff's exhibit 21) and on January 3, 1930 he entered
into a seventh and final contract (plaintiff's exhibit 22). All of these contracts related to the development and design of
semi-automatic rifles and were more or less similar in phraseology. Pedersen's development work thus extended
through January 3, 1930.
All seven of these contracts were approved either by the Secretary of War or the Assistant Secretary of War. The
seven contracts (plaintiff's exhibits [**17] 13, 15-17, inclusive, and 20-22 inclusive) are made a part of this finding by
reference.
8. Pertinent portions of the seventh and last contract of January 3, 1930, are as follows:
****
That, whereas, the contractor is a successful designer of automatic and semi-automatic hand arms, and
has been for a number of years working on the design of a semi-automatic shoulder rifle for Infantry use,
and
Whereas, the United States desires to have manufactured a semi-automatic shoulder arm for
experimental purposes and test, and should the test prove the design to be a success, to secure a license to
manufacture the arm under such patents as the contractor has or may secure, and
[*235] Whereas, a semi-automatic shoulder arm has been designed and a number have been
completed by the United States under the supervision of the contractor, in accordance with contract dated
May 21, 1923, as amended by extension dated May 20, 1924, and contract dated June 1, 1925, and
contract dated June 1, 1926, and contract dated June 1, 1927, and
Whereas, the semi-automatic shoulder arm delivered under the contract dated June 1, 1925, and the
twenty (20) semi-automatic shoulder arms delivered [**18] under the contract dated June 1, 1927, have
successfully passed the Ordnance functioning tests, and have passed tests conducted by the Infantry and
Cavalry Boards, and
Whereas, the design and manufacture of an improved type of semi-automatic arm embodying certain
necessary or desirable changes in the type already delivered was begun under the contract dated June 1,
1927, and continued under the contract dated August 27, 1928, and the contract dated Jan. 2, 1929, but
not completed thereunder, and
Whereas, the contractor is willing, should the arm already delivered, or the improved type begun
under the contract dated June 1, 1927, and continued under the contracts dated August 27, 1928 and
January 2, 1929, and to be completed under this agreement, be approved for adoption by the United

Page 7
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *235; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **18

States, to grant the United States a license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, and use and sell
in accordance with existing laws arms according to his invention and designs upon the conditions
hereinafter set forth.
****
Article I. The contractor agrees to disclose to the United States the work which he has already done
towards inventing, designing and manufacturing the improved type of [**19] semi-automatic shoulder
arm begun under the contract dated June 1, 1927, and continued under the contract dated August 27,
1928, and the contract dated January 2, 1929, to meet such specifications as may arise or may have
arisen as a result of the tests of the arm already delivered. * * *
Article II. The contractor agrees to complete the design and building of the improved type of
semi-automatic shoulder arm without further expense to the United States except as provided in Article
III hereof, and to deliver to the contracting officer one complete form of said arm, not later than
December 31, 1930.
Article III. Upon the performance by the contractor of the provisions set forth in Articles I and II
hereof, [*236] he shall receive as compensation for such performance the sum of One Thousand Dollars
($ 1,000.).
Article IV. The right and title to any patents secured by the contractor upon inventions disclosed to
the United States in connection with the development and manufacture of the semi-automatic rifle, or
upon any invention which the contractor may make during the period of the design and construction of
the rifle, shall be and remain exclusively with the contractor, except [**20] that in consideration of this
agreement and the payments which may be made under it, the contractor hereby grants to the United
States an exclusive license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, and use and sell in accordance
with existing law, arms incorporating the inventions and developments disclosed under this contract, or
any patented improvements thereon subsequently granted said contractor. It is to be understood that this
contract shall be interpreted as dealing with rights under United States patents only.
This exclusive license shall permit the United States to manufacture or cause to be manufactured,
and use and sell in accordance with existing law, this arm upon payment to the party of the first part of a
royalty of One Dollar and Twenty-five cents ($ 1.25) per gun up to a maximum of Four Hundred
Thousand (400,000) guns, after which royalty payments shall cease, and the United States shall then
have a non-exclusive license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured and to use and sell in
accordance with existing law the arms in consideration of the prior payments. Royalty payments under
this license shall be made as soon as practicable after the first day of January [**21] and July in each
year for all arms manufactured during the preceding six months.
If, however, the United States shall not on or before December 31, 1934, enter upon routine
production with standard manufacturing equipment, then the exclusive license shall cease and the United
States shall then have a non-exclusive license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, and to use
and sell in accordance with existing law the arms. Royalty payments under this non-exclusive license
shall then be the same as those specified for the exclusive license in paragraph 2, Article IV of this
contract.
Article V. The name "Pedersen" shall appear on each arm manufactured by the United States under
this agreement.
****

Page 8
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *236; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **21

[*237] Article VII. The Government shall have the right to renew the license above defined from
year to year, commencing July 1 of each year, and ending June 30 of the following year. It is understood
and agreed that an election by the Government to continue the license for succeeding years shall be
implied, unless the licensee shall, by written notice not later than May 1, of any year, notify the licensor
of its election to terminate the license.
****
Article XII. Adjustment [**22] of Claims and Disputes: Except as otherwise specifically provided
in this contract, any claims, doubts, or disputes which may arise under this contract or as to its
performance or nonperformance, and which are not disposed of by mutual agreement, shall be referred to
the Chief of Ordnance for determination. The contractor, if not satisfied with such determination may
submit the matter, by petition, to the Secretary of War or his duly authorized representative or
representatives. The decision of the Secretary of War or of such duly authorized representative or
representatives shall be final and conclusive on all matters submitted for determination. * * *
****

9. The purpose of the development of a semi-automatic rifle was to increase the firing power of the soldier as
compared to one having a hand-operated type of magazine rifle such as the Springfield rifle model of 1903 and in which
the bolt was hand operated for each shot. For comparative purposes, a Springfield rifle and a stripping cartridge clip
therefor have been introduced in evidence as plaintiff's physical exhibits 11 and 12.
10. Among the principal problems involved in the development of a satisfactory [**23] semi-automatic rifle were
-(a) Speeding up the method of recharging the magazine without increasing the weight of the ammunition;
(b) Supplying the additional parts required for semi-automatic operation of sufficient strength to withstand the
power of the service cartridges and at the same time not increasing the weight of the rifle materially above that of the
hand-operated rifle;
(c) Designing the operating parts to get them into the small space available;
[*238] (d) Reducing to a minimum the recoil of the rifle to keep it from interfering with the soldier's aim;
(e) Notifying the soldier when his rifle is empty;
(f) Avoiding openings in the receiver of the rifle through which dirt and moisture might enter to interfere with the
operation of the mechanism.
11. The Pedersen semi-automatic rifle developed pursuant to plaintiff's contracts with the United States employed
an automatic breech mechanism comprising a delayed action toggle joint. The sliding breech bolt was yieldingly held
in a forward or closed position by the toggle joint and a spring. The explosion of the cartridge in the chamber and the
resulting backward movement thereof against the yielding breech [**24] bolt provided the power which operated the
gun. The energy thus produced, acting through the inertia of the breech bolt, pushed the bolt back, ejecting the spent
cartridge, and compressed the bolt spring which, when the inertia effect was spent, again pushed the bolt forward,
loading the next cartridge into the chamber of the rifle.
The magazine was loaded by an "en bloc" clip which contained a stack of ten cartridges arranged in two rows of
five each in staggered relation. The en bloc clip differed from the stripping clip in that the clip itself was introduced

Page 9
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *238; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **24

into the magazine and held in place by means of a clip latch. When the cartridges in the clip were exhausted the clip
latch was automatically released and the clip was ejected by a clip discharge mechanism.
The cartridges were pushed up from the clip by a spring-actuated follower having two fixed steps which engaged
the bottom cartridge of each of the two rows. This made it necessary to have the cartridge in the clip introduced into the
rifle with the high row of cartridges always on the same side.
When the last cartridge was fired, and the empty shell and the clip ejected, a bolt lock functioned to hold the breech
[**25] bolt in the rear or open position.
This notified the gunner that the magazine was empty and kept the gun open to receive a fresh clip of cartridges.
This rifle and a double row en bloc clip are exemplified by plaintiff's physical exhibits 7 and 8.
[*239] 12. During the period when Pedersen was developing and perfecting his semi-automatic rifle the Ordnance
Department was also developing and testing a semi-automatic rifle which was being designed by John C. Garand, a
civilian employee of the Ordnance Department at Springfield Armory, and another semi-automatic rifle designed by
Brig. General John T. Thompson.
As originally designed, the Garand gun was primer actuated, that is to say, the setback of the primer of the cartridge
was used to obain the power to actuate the mechanism of the gun. This was subsequently changed however to utilize the
gas pressure from the barrel for this purpose.
The Thompson gun used a sliding wedge breech block.
Both of these semi-automatic rifles as first designed were charged with five .30 cal. cartridges from the standard
stripping clip.
During this period of development the Pedersen, Thompson, and Garand rifles were subjected to [**26]
comparative firing tests from time to time and written reports were made by officials of the Ordnance Department in
charge of the tests.
13. An official report of the test of the Pedersen semi-automatic rifle conducted by the engineering division of the
Springfield Armory, Springfield, Massachusetts, and dated May 18, 1926 (plaintiff's exhibit 36) stated in part as
follows:
22. Conclusions: The Board is impressed with the trigger pull of this rifle (Calibre .276 Pedersen
Semiautomatic shoulder rifle), for it more nearly approaches that of the service rifle Model 1903 than
any semi-automatic weapon submitted for some time.
****
24. The Board finds that the system of loading en-bloc into the magazine as distinguished from the
charger or stripping system of loading cartridges into the magazine as exemplified in the service rifle,
Model of 1903, promotes speed of fire overcoming the tendency to block in hasty loading -- there is no
opportunity to spill the rounds, a common occurrence at the present time.
****
26. Recommendations: The Board is of the opinion that the Pedersen .276 caliber semi-automatic
shoulder rifle has given such results under test as to warrant [**27] the [*240] construction of twenty
(20) such rifles for further test and the Board recommends that such action be taken.

Page 10
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *240; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **27

14. In an official report dated June 15, 1926 (plaintiff's exhibit 50) to the Chief of the Infantry Division,
Washington, D. C., and entitled "Report of Test of Garand and Thompson Semi-automatic Rifles," The Infantry Board
at Fort Benning, Georgia, stated in part -2. The Infantry Board believes that in addition to the correction of the defects in these rifles noted in
the Report of Test, an improvement in both rifles is highly desirable in respect to weight and method of
charging the magazine.
a. Every opportunity should be sought to reduce weight where practicable.
b. The method of charging the magazine with the present clip of five cartridges is too slow. It fails
to utilize the potential fire power of these weapons. While the desired fire power could be obtained by
employing a 20 shot magazine of the Browning type, the objections to this type experienced with the
Browning automatic rifle are sufficient to condemn it. The method used in the Pedersen rifle is a great
improvement and gives sufficient speed; it may be possible, however, [**28] to reduce the weight of
the clip or devise a better method. The solution of this problem is of great importance in the Garand and
Thompson as well as in .276 caliber. A clip or charge of ten cartridges is considered ample; less than 10
cartridges may be found necessary or advisable in the .30 caliber weapons. The end desired is speed and
facility of operation and minimum weight.
3. In view of the favorable results shown in "Report of ordnance test of the .276 caliber Pedersen
semi-automatic rifle," dated May 10, 1926, and in the demonstration witnessed by the Infantry Board
January 25-27, 1926, a thorough test of this rifle should be made by the Infantry Board before making its
final recommendation relative to the adoption of a semi-automatic rifle.
****
6. Recommendations.
The Infantry Board recommends action by the Ordnance Department as follows:
a. Perfect the .276 caliber Pedersen Semi-automatic Rifle for test by the Infantry Board as early as
practicable.
[*241] b. Correct as far as practicable the objectionable features in the Garand rifle, especially as to
accuracy and trigger pull; at least one model to be ready for test by the Infantry Board with the .276
[**29] caliber Pedersen rifle.
c. Advise the manufacturer of the objectionable features of the Thompson rifle and invite
presentation of an improved model for test with the .276 caliber Pedersen rifle.
d. Make a thorough study to determine the best method of charging the magazine of the
semi-automatic rifles using the .30 caliber service cartridge as well as the .276 caliber cartridge; the end
desired being rapidity and facility of operation and minimum weight.

15. Pursuant to the report of The Infantry Board of June 15, 1926, the Ordnance subcommittee on semi-automatic
shoulder rifles (plaintiff's exhibit 51) issued a report of recommendations dated July 24, 1926, the pertinent part of
which is quoted:
****

Page 11
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *241; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **29

6. In continuation of the project along mechanical lines, the Subcommittee has concluded that it will be
desirable to design and fabricate a caliber .30 weapon based on the Garand design, to include all
improvements which appear possible in the light of experience gained in work already done, and in
general conformance with the recommendation contained in paragraph 6, subparagraph (b) of the letter
from the President of the Infantry Board accompanying Report No. 386 [**30] on semiautomatic rifles.
7. Recommendations: The Subcommittee recommends as follows:
(a) That approval be given for the design and manufacture of one caliber .30 semi-automatic rifle
based on the Garand design, to include all such improvements as may be practicable.
(b) That the Auto-Ordnance Corporation be informed concerning the results of the Infantry Board
test with respect to the Thompson auto-rifle, and that they be advised that further tests will be made of
this type weapon in the event they (the Auto-Ordnance Corporation) desire to present an improved
model.

16. Following other competitive tests of the Pedersen, Garand, and Thompson semi-automatic rifles in comparison
with the Springfield rifle, the Department of Experiment of [*242] The Infantry School sent in an official report to the
president of The Infantry Board under date of February 8, 1928, which stated in part -****
As previously explained the Garand and Thompson rifles were badly handicapped by the absence of
proper ammunition. The Garand rifle works best with a special type of cartridge having a large primer.
It is understood that the mechanism of the Thompson rifle is adjusted to [**31] operate with
ammunition having a 170 grain bullet. * * *
8. Due to the faulty character of the caliber .30 ammunition much difficulty was experienced in
extracting the fired cartridge case. This applied equally to the service rifle (M. 1903), Garand rifle, and
the Thompson rifle. The fact that the cartridges were loosely held in their "strip" clips was the direct
cause of many jams. This is probably due to the hurried manner in which this ammunition was
manufactured during the last war. Since such conditions would probably prevail during the next war this
characteristics should be compared with the ease of charging the magazine by an "en bloc" method such
as is employed by the Pedersen rifle.

****
17. The final report (plaintiff's exhibit 39) entitled "Report of Test of the Pedersen Semi-automatic Rifle, Caliber
.276" from The Infantry Board, Fort Benning, Georgia, dated May 8, 1928, says in part -****
4. The Board believes:
a. That the advantages of the Pedersen rifle over the present Infantry armament, clearly
demonstrated by this test, are such that further delay in the solution of the semi-automatic rifle problem
is not justified.
b. That, while [**32] not directly covered by this test, the question of the casualty effect of the .276
caliber should be accepted as clearly sufficient to meet all requirements.

Page 12
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *242; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **32

c. That, with the modifications listed in paragraph 24 b, this rifle is suitable and should now be
adopted for Infantry use as a complete replacement for the service rifle and the Browning automatic rifle.
****
6. Recommendation:
****
[*243] b. That the Pedersen Semi-automatic rifle Cal. .276 be adopted as standard to completely
replace the service rifle (M. 1903) and the Browning automatic rifle and that it be included in the current
program for manufacture.
****

Included with the report was a report of test on the Pedersen semi-automatic rifle from the Department of
Experiment of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia, dated April 30, 1928, stating in part as follows:
a. Sights.
****
21. Although not directly affecting the factor of accuracy the following improvements would add to
the efficiency of the Pedersen rifle: * * *
e. A reversible clip. The adoption of such a clip would eliminate the only superiority of the service
rifle clip over that of the Pedersen rifle. This fact has been [**33] brought to the attention of the
inventor, Mr. J. D. Pedersen. Mechanical difficulties involved may outweigh the advantage which would
accrue through its adoption.
****

18. Plaintiff completed the development and supervisory work provided for in the various contracts with the United
States and delivered to the Ordnance Department the semiautomatic rifles, the construction of which was therein
specified.
The United States paid to plaintiff both the yearly sums and the lump sums provided for in the contracts with
reference to his services and the construction of the Pedersen semiautomatic rifles.
19. During the progress of the development work under the contracts, Pedersen filed three patent applications and
obtained three patents thereon, prosecuting the same at his own expense. These patents are as follows:
(1) United States patent to Pedersen, No. 1,737,974, entitled "Magazine Rifle"; application filed June 9, 1927;
issued December 3, 1929.
(2) United States patent to Pedersen, No. 1,732,949, entitled "Cartridge Clip"; application filed January 14, 1928;
issued October 22, 1929.
[*244] (3) United States patent to Pedersen, No. 1,804,511, entitled "Combination [**34] of Cartridge Clip and
Follower"; application filed February 14, 1929; issued May 12, 1931.

Page 13
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *244; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **34

For convenience, these patents which are in issue in these cases, will hereinafter be referred to as the first, second,
and third patents in suit.
Plaintiff owned the entire right, title, and interest to each of these patents on the respective dates when the petitions
herein were filed.
The first patent in suit discloses and claims a bolt lock mechanism functioning to hold a breech bolt in a rearward
position after the last cartridge is fired and the clip ejected, and also discloses and claims mechanism pertaining to the
automatic release of the empty clip and its ejection mechanism.
The second patent in suit discloses and claims an en bloc cartridge clip for holding a double row of cartridges in
staggered relationship.
The third patent in suit an en bloc cartridge clip holding a double row of cartridges in combination with a shifting
follower to provide a movable step for supporting the staggered rows of cartridges, irrespective of how the cartridges
are loaded in the clip. Its disclosures are not as broad as its claims, as shown hereafter in findings 67, 68, and 69.
Copies of [**35] these three patents, plaintiff's exhibits 1, 2 and 3, are made a part of this finding by reference.
20. Sometime prior to 1938 the United States began the manufacture of a semi-automatic rifle known as the M-1, or
Garand, rifle, and en bloc cartridge clips for it. The construction of this rifle and the cartridge clip is exemplified by a
Garand rifle and a cartridge clip introduced in evidence as plaintiff's physical exhibits 5 and 6.
The Garand rifle had incorporated therein mechanism for automatically ejecting the empty clip after the firing of
the last cartridge and for locking the bolt in the rearward or open position.
The mechanism of the rifle also included a transversely slidable rib mounted on top of the follower. Whether or not
this rib gave support to the upper row of cartridges is disputed by the parties.
[*245] The type of clip used in the Garand rifle was an en bloc clip which held two rows of cartridges in staggered
relationship.
The detailed constructional features of these various devices are more fully set forth in findings which deal more
particularly with the patent infringement case and which are as follows:
The Garand Rifle, Findings [**36] 30 to 33, inclusive;
The Garand Clip, Finding 50;
The Garand Clip and Follower, Findings 70, 71.

21. On October 20, 1938 plaintiff wrote a letter (plaintiff's exhibit 23) to the Chief of Ordnance on the subject of
the license contract, in which letter plaintiff pointed out the various claims of the three patents in suit which in his
opinion covered the structure of the Garand rifle and its clip.
On February 21, 1939 he again wrote the Chief of Ordnance as follows:
I am writing you with reference to my contract with the government (Ordnance Department), dated
January 3, 1930 and under which the government enjoys a license under my patents for semi-automatic
rifle and parts thereof. You will recall a mention of this contract in one of our conversations last fall and
that as a result of said conversation I wrote you a letter dated October 20, 1938, pointing out the several
claims in three of my patents (Nos. 1,737,974, 1,804,511, and 1,732,949) which cover certain features of

Page 14
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *245; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **36

the M1 rifle.
I have had no further word from you on the subject and it seems advisable therefore for me to make
a formal request of the Ordnance Department (and I ask that this letter be taken [**37] as such) to make
accounting and payment to me of the royalties called for in said contract of January 3, 1930 for the
number of M1 rifles which the Ordnance Department has heretofore made, and to continue such
payments to me in accordance with Article IV of said contract.
If there are any points about the contract or my patents, or the M1 rifle as covered thereby, which
you would like to discuss with me, I shall be very glad to come to Washington for this purpose at any
time that you appoint.
This letter was acknowledged on February 28, 1939.
[*246] 22. By a letter to plaintiff dated April 20, 1939 (plaintiff's exhibit 26) the Chief of Ordnance canceled the
then existing contract between the United States and Pedersen dated January 3, 1930, and thus purporting to terminate
the license agreement pursuant to Article VII of this contract. This termination was stated to be effective as of June 30,
1939.
23. On April 26, 1939, plaintiff by letter to the Chief of Ordnance again requested royalties due him under his
contract of January 3, 1930. This letter (plaintiff's exhibit 27) read as follows:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of April 20, 1939 [**38] terminating as of June 30, 1939, the
Government's license granted under my contract dated January 3, 1930.
I herewith demand that the Government make payment to me of the royalties specified in said
license for all M-1 semi-automatic rifles manufactured up to January 1, 1939, and as soon after June 30,
1939 as practicable to make payment to me for such further rifles as will have been manufactured
between January 1, 1939 and June 30, 1939.
If said payments of royalty are made promptly and without my being compelled to bring suit on said
contract, I will waive all claims for damages under said contract occasioned by the Government's failure
to place the name "Pedersen" on the licensed rifles, as called for in Article V of said contract January 3,
1930.

On May 4, 1939, the Chief of Ordnance replied as follows:
Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated April 26, 1939, wherein demand is made that the
Government make payment under the license agreement contained in contract W 852-ord-6, dated
January 3, 1930.
The Commanding Officer, Springfield Armory, has been requested to prepare the necessary
vouchers and submit same to you for signature and return to this office. Upon [**39] receipt of these
vouchers, it will be necessary to forward same to the General Accounting Office for direct settlement,
inasmuch as certain funds are involved which cannot be disbursed by the local finance officer, as the
funds have reverted to the Treasury.
The vouchers to be submitted at this time will include all guns manufactured under the license
agreement prior to January 1, 1939. Another voucher will be submitted [*247] to you at a later date
covering guns manufactured during the period January 1, 1939 and June 30, 1939.

Page 15
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *247; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **39

The action of this office in submitting these vouchers to the General Accounting Office for
settlement is not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the validity of your patents.

24. The Springfield Armory then prepared and sent to plaintiff for signature four vouchers, copies of which are in
evidence as plaintiff's exhibit 29A. These four vouchers showed manufacture of Garand rifles as follows: 80 rifles in
the fiscal year 1935, 2,802 in the fiscal year of 1938, 4,118 rifles from July 1 to December 31, 1938, and 6,024 from
January 1, 1939 to June 30, 1939, and specified a payment of $ 1.25 per rifle, or a total of $ 16,280.
Each voucher [**40] stated the purpose of the payment to be as follows:
"For payment of fee in accordance with license agreement contained in contract W 852-ord-6, dated
January 3, 1930."

These vouchers were signed by plaintiff and returned. The original vouchers do not indicate on their face the
approval of the Ordnance Department.
25. On January 10, 1940, the Comptroller General refused payment of these four vouchers by a settlement
certificate reading as follows:
Your claim No. 0843891 for a total of $ 16,280, alleged to be due as fees for royalties relative to the
inventing and designing of an improved semi-automatic shoulder rifle under license agreement contained
in contract No. W-852-ord-6, dated January 3, 1930, has been carefully examined and it is found that no
part thereof may be allowed for the reasons hereinafter stated.
The record shows the rifle designed by you was not adopted by the United States Army as standard
equipment, instead, a rifle identified as the MI, semi-automatic, has been accepted and is now considered
as standard equipment of the United States Army. Although the rifle designed and developed by you
was not accepted as standard equipment, you contend [**41] that certain of your patents have been
infringed upon in the manufacture of the rifle adopted as standard equipment and base your claim for
payment of royalties on a total of 13,024 [*248] rifles manufactured by the Government during the
fiscal years 1935, 1938, and 1939 at $ 1.25 per unit, or $ 16,280.
Paragraph 2 of article 4 of the contract dated January 3, 1930, reads as follows:
"This exclusive license shall permit the United States to manufacture or cause to be manufactured,
and use and sell in accordance with existing law, this arm upon payment to the party of the first part of a
royalty of One Dollar and Twenty-five Cents ($ 1.25) per gun up to a maximum of Four Hundred
Thousand (400,000) guns, after which royalty payments shall cease, and the United States shall then
have a non-exclusive license to manufacture or cause to be manufactured and to use and sell in
accordance with existing law the arms in consideration of the prior payments. Royalty payments under
this license shall be made as soon as practicable after the first day of January and July in each year for all
arms manufactured during the preceding six months."
It is clear that the term "this arm" as used [**42] in that part of the contract above quoted has
reference to the semi-automatic rifle only, which designing and developing was under your supervision
and not to the MI, semi-automatic rifle, designed by an employee of the Government and accepted as
standard equipment for use by the United States Army.
In view of the fact the contract contains no provision for payment of royalties for the MI
semi-automatic rifle manufactured and adopted by the United States as standard equipment and since the

Page 16
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *248; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **42

semi-automatic rifle designed by you was not approved or accepted by the Government as standard
equipment, there is no authority for payment of the amount claimed.
I therefore certify that no balance is found due you from the United States.

Plaintiff thereafter filed his petition in case No. 45196 for an alleged breach of his patent license contract.
FINDINGS RELATING MORE PARTICULARLY TO THE PATENT CASE
The Pedersen Rifle Patent -- The first patent in suit
26. The title of this patent, No. 1,737,974, is "Magazine Rifle." The specification states that the embodiment is
preferably semi-automatic in its action, that is to say, one shot for each pull of the trigger until the magazine [**43] is
exhausted.
[*249] In the gun illustrated in the rifle patent, the breech bolt is moved to the rear by energy obtained by setback
of the cartridge on its explosion and is moved forward to feed a new cartridge by means of a spring. The manner in
which energy is derived for operation of the breech bolt is not here in issue.
The disclosure of the patent, which deals with various details of rifle mechanism, is intricate both with respect to
the description and the drawings. The following description is therefore limited to the features that are in issue in the
present case and which comprise a bolt stop for holding the bolt in its rearward position after the firing of the last
cartridge; a latch for retaining the cartridge clip in position; and mechanisms for releasing the cartridge clip and ejecting
it.
For the purpose of illustrating these elements, reference is had to Figs. 7 and 11 of the Pedersen rifle patent, which
are reproduced herewith. Fig. 7 shows the sliding breech bolt in the forward or closed position and with a clip of
cartridges in the magazine. Fig. 11 shows the rifle with the sliding bolt 23 held in its rearward position and with the
parts in a position [**44] that they would assume just subsequent to the ejection of the clip, which is shown in dotted
lines just above the open magazine in this latter figure. Fig. 11 is less complicated than Fig. 7, and the elements in issue
are more readily seen therein.
27. The mode of operation is as follows:
Starting with the parts in the position shown in Fig. 11, an en bloc clip containing two rows of cartridges in
staggered relation is inserted in the magazine. The cartridges rest upon the follower 159 which passes upward between
the sides of the clip to feed the cartridges into position ready to be pushed out of the clip by the bolt 23 and into the
chamber of the barrel.
The bolt 23 engages the rear end of the top cartridge and pushes it out of the clip. As it is pushed out of the clip the
point of the bullet rides up a ramp or inclined surface which guides the cartridge into the chamber. The follower is
moved by two levers 160 and 163. These levers are constructed and pivoted so that the follower is in an inclined
position, as shown in Fig. 7 of the patent, when it is in its lowest position, and is horizontal when in its highest position.
[*250] [SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
[**45] [*251] The magazine feed spring 170 acts on the levers and tends to push the follower into its highest
position. This spring is compressed when the full clip is pushed down into the magazine chamber. The gun is also
provided with a kicker or clip ejector 138 located at the bottom of the magazine chamber
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]

Page 17
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *251; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **45

and which is urged upward by the kicker spring 142. The kicker 138 has a short movement and is not depressed
against the action of the kicker spring 142 until the full clip of cartridges and the follower have been pushed down
nearly to their lowest position in the magazine.
[*252] The gun is also provided with a clip latch 132 which is pivoted to the receiver. The upper end of the clip
latch is in the form of a hook and engages a projection 135 on the back of the clip. The kicker 138 cannot operate to
throw out the empty clip until the latch 132 has been disengaged from the projection 135 on the back of the clip. The
clip latch 132 is provided at its lower end with a projection 132c located in such a position that just before the follower
reaches its highest position with the exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip, the rear portion [**46] of lever 163 strikes
the projection 132c and tends to swing the hook 132b on the top of the clip latch out of engagement with the projection
135 on the clip. This is, however, prevented until the bolt is locked in the rearward position with the magazine chamber
fully uncovered.
The bolt 23 is undercut on its under side to form a shoulder. A pivoted member 130, called a bolt stop, has an
upwardly projecting point 130a which can engage the shoulder formed by the undercut on the underside of the bolt. The
bolt stop 130 is normally held out of engagement with the bolt by a spring 133 which bears against a projection at the
lower end of the bolt stop.
The clip latch 132 has a rearward extension 132a which engages the downward projection 130c on the bolt stop
upon exhaustion of cartridges in the clip, and the consequent upward movement of the follower tends to move the top
end of the clip latch rearwardly. This also tends to swing the point 130a of the bolt stop up against the underside of the
bolt. Upon the firing of the last cartridge and the consequent backward movement of the bolt, the bolt moves rearwardly
until the undercut on its underside is directly above the bolt stop prongs. [**47] When this position is reached, the rear
end or point of the bolt stop snaps into the undercut, thereby locking the bolt in its rearward position. At the same time
this permits the front end of the clip latch to move rearwardly under the urge of the follower spring. The clip latch then
disengages the clip, which is then ejected by the kicker 138 and its associated spring 142.
The interlocking of the clip release and the bolt stop therefore functions to insure that the bolt is held in a rearward
[*253] position with the magazine fully uncovered prior to the ejection of the clip, and the bolt is held in this open
position with the magazine open and ready to receive a fresh clip of cartridges.
A manual release is also provided for the clip latch by which the shooter can release the clip from the gun at will
whenever the breech is open. This manual release is actuated by the trigger 8. When the trigger is pushed forward, a
train of mechanism acts on the rearward projection 132a of the clip latch 132 and pulls back the clip latch hook 132b,
disengaging the hook from the clip lug 135, and releasing the clip. At the same time the clip latch moves the rear end
130a of the bolt [**48] stop upward to hold the bolt in its rear or open position.
28. This construction has important advantages due to the interrelation of the parts, some of which are:
The last cartridge which has been fired can be ejected cleanly without interference from a premature ejection of the
clip.
The clip can be ejected cleanly without interference from the front end of the bolt or from the last cartridge in the
process of being ejected.
The clip is thrown upwardly out of the magazine by the full force of the kicker, and so notifies the soldier that his
gun is empty.
A weaker kicker spring can therefore be used and consequently less effort is required to insert the clip of cartridges.
In the downward movement of the clip the rifleman has to overcome only the force of the magazine spring until just
before the follower reaches its lowest position. This makes insertion of the clip easier because it is nearly in place

Page 18
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *253; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **48

before the maximum push is required.
29. The claims in suit of this patent are as follows:
24. In combination, a gun having a bolt movable back and forth therein, a bolt stop operable for
holding said bolt in its rearward position, a clip of cartridges, a latch [**49] for retaining said clip of
cartridges in position for loading, cartridge feeding means mounted on said gun independently of said
clip, said cartridge feeding means acting upon the exhaustion of cartridges in said clip to [*254] release
said latch and also actuate said bolt stop into its bolt holding position.
25. In combination, a gun, a clip of cartridges, means for retaining said clip in position for loading,
clip discharge mechanism tending to discharge said clip from said gun, and cartridge feeding means
acting upon the exhaustion of the cartridges in said clip to permit the discharge of said clip by said clip
discharge mechanism.
29. In combination, a gun having a magazine chamber adapted to contain therein a clip of cartridges,
clip discharge mechanism tending to discharge said clip from said chamber, a latch for restraining the
discharge of said clip, and cartridge feeding means acting upon the exhaustion of the cartridges in said
clip to release the latch for the discharge of said clip by the clip discharge mechanism.
30. In combination, a gun having a magazine chamber adapted to contain a clip of cartridges, a
breech action comprising a reciprocating bolt, a bolt stop [**50] operable in position to hold the bolt
when in its rear position, clip discharge mechanism tending to discharge said clip from said chamber, a
latch for restraining the discharge of said clip, and cartridge feeding means, separate from said clip
discharge mechanism, acting upon the exhaustion of the cartridges in said clip to release the latch and
also to actuate the bolt stop into its holding position.
33. In a gun, in combination, a receiver, a barrel, a breech action, a magazine chamber in said
receiver located below said breech action, a clip of cartridges contained in said magazine chamber,
means appurtenant to said breech action for loading a cartridge from said clip into said barrel, clip
discharge mechanism in position and arranged to discharge said clip upwardly out of said magazine
chamber and past said breech action, said clip discharge mechanism having an automatic operation in
discharging said clip controlled by the exhaustion of cartridges in said clip.
34. In a gun, in combination, a receiver, a barrel, a breech action, a magazine chamber in said
receiver located below said breech action, a clip of cartridges contained in said magazine chamber, said
breech action comprising [**51] a bolt reciprocable in said receiver forwardly and rearwardly above
said magazine chamber for loading a cartridge from said clip into said barrel, clip discharge mechanism
in position and arranged to discharge said clip upwardly out of said magazine chamber and past said
breech action, said clip discharge mechanism having an automatic operation in discharging said clip
controlled [*255] by the exhaustion of cartridges in said clip, and also controlled by a subsequent
positioning of said bolt rearwardly in said receiver.
35. In a gun, in combination, a receiver, a barrel, a breech action, a magazine chamber in said
receiver located below said breech action, a clip of cartridges contained in said magazine chamber,
means appurtenant to said breech action for loading a cartridge from said clip into said barrel, clip
discharge mechanism in position and arranged to discharge said clip upwardly out of said magazine
chamber and past said breech action, said clip discharge mechanism having an automatic operation in
discharging said clip controlled by the exhaustion of cartridges in said clip, and manually actuated means
to render said clip discharge mechanism operative in discharging [**52] said clip prior to the exhaustion
of the cartridges in said clip.

Page 19
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *255; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **52

39. In a gun, in combination, a receiver having a magazine chamber, a clip of cartridges contained in
said magazine chamber, clip discharge mechanism tending to discharge said clip from said chamber, a
latch for restraining the discharge of the clip, feeding means for the cartridges in said clip operatively
mounted on said gun independently of said clip and arranged to release the latch upon the exhaustion of
the cartridges in said clip.

The Alleged Infringing Structure
30. The Garand M-1 rifle alleged to infringe the claims set forth in the previous finding is exemplified by a Garand
rifle, plaintiff's physical exhibit 5; a large colored chart, defendant's exhibit 6; a series of seven colored charts, plaintiff's
exhibit 4, and two enlarged drawings relating more specifically to the parts herein involved, which drawings are in
evidence as defendant's exhibits 8 and 9. These drawings have many of the various elements identified by similar
reference characters to those used on the colored chart, defendant's exhibit 6, and in the following description these
characters are used.
As is the case with the [**53] rifle disclosed in the Pedersen rifle patent, the Garand rifle is of the semi-automatic
type and has a reciprocating breech bolt which moves back and forth across the top of the magazine, operating on its
forward motion to select the top cartridge in a clip and force it into the barrel, and operating on its rearward movement
to eject [*256] the empty cartridge and cock the firing mechanism. Also, as in the Pedersen rifle patent, the breech
bolt is urged forward by a spring and is moved rearward by energy obtained from the explosion of the cartridge.
As has been stated in connection with the Pedersen rifle patent, the mechanism by which such energy is applied to
the breech bolt is not herein in issue. However, for a complete understanding of the Garand rifle, it is stated that there is
located beneath the barrel of the rifle a cylinder and piston, the cylinder being connected to the rifle barrel through a
port near the forward end of the barrel. When the gun is fired and during the period after the bullet has passed the port
but before it emerges from the rifle barrel, gas pressure from the barrel passes into the cylinder and acts on a rearward
extending operating rod, the [**54] rear end of which is connected to the reciprocating breech bolt. Due to the inertia of
the parts, the gas pressure from the explosion functions to move the breech bolt rearward against the spring at about the
instant after the bullet leaves the muzzle of the gun.
The bolt 15 which reciprocates in the receiver is adapted to rotate slightly about its longitudinal axis just before
reaching its forward position, which rotation acts to lock the bolt by the engagement of locking lugs thereon which
engage with mating shoulders formed in the receiver.
The reciprocating motion of the operating rod is imparted to the breech bolt by means of a projection on the latter,
which engages in a recess in the former, and this connection, insofar as the reciprocating motion of the breech bolt is
concerned, causes it and the operating rod to move together as a unit with the exception that there is about 1/16" play
between the two members. A preliminary rearward movement of the operating rod acts through a diagonal cam slot on
the latter to cause the breech bolt to first rotate to the unlocked position prior to its rearward movement with the
operating rod.
The M-1 Garand rifle employs an en bloc [**55] clip containing two rows of cartridges in a staggered relation. A
clip loaded with dummy cartridges is in evidence as plaintiff's physical exhibit 6. When the gun is loaded the clip is
inserted in the magazine, together with the cartridges, similar to the loading operation disclosed in the Pedersen rifle
[*257] patent, and the bottom cartridges rest upon a follower 48 which is urged upward by means of an operating
spring to feed the cartridges into the top position of the clip ready to be pushed out of the clip and into the chamber of
the rifle by the forward motion of the bolt. The follower is pushed upward by means of a pivoted lever or follower arm
47, which is urged both rearward and upward by means of a pivoted forked connection with the rear end of a follower
rod 43 which is at all times urged rearward by means of the operating rod spring 41.

Page 20
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *257; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **55

When the clip is inserted in the magazine the follower is depressed and the connections between the parts just
described cause the operating rod spring to be more compressed.
31. The gun is provided with a clip latch 17 which extends along the outside of the left-hand side of the receiver
and is pivoted on a longitudinal [**56] axis. The rear end of this element extends downward and inward through an
opening in the side of the receiver, the inner end of this projection forming the latch proper. This portion is urged
inwardly by means of a spring and is adapted to engage a recess on the side of the clip when the same is inserted in the
magazine, thereby latching the clip in position. The front end of this longitudinal latch member also extends through
the side of the receiver and is located below a hook projecting rearward from the operating rod catch member 20. When
the operating rod catch rocks upwardly on its pivot for the purpose of locking the reciprocating bolt in the rearward
position in a manner to be subsequently explained, this rearward extending hook portion presses down on the inwardly
protruding forward end of the clip latch member, thereby rotating it about its longitudinal axis to withdraw the rear latch
member and release the clip.
There is a thumb piece at the rear end of the clip latch and on the outside, by the movement of which the rifleman
can manually rotate the clip latch member and release the clip latch.
There is a spring member or clip ejector 53 located at the bottom of the [**57] magazine chamber which throws
the clip out when it is released, provided the bolt is in the rearward [*258] position. This clip ejector has a short
movement and is not depressed until the full clip of cartridges and the follower have been pushed down nearly to their
lowest position.
32. The Garand rifle is similar to the disclosure of the Pedersen patent in that it possesses mechanism for locking or
holding the reciprocating bolt in the rearward position upon the firing of the last cartridge. This is accomplished by an
undercut hook 76 (defendant's exhibit 8) located on the undersurface of the operating rod 37, which, as has been
previously stated, is connected by a pin to the breech bolt so that these elements reciprocate together.
As shown more specifically in the enlarged drawing, defendant's exhibit 8, after the last cartridge has been fed out
of the clip, the follower arm 47 continues to rise until the sliding rib on the follower strikes the underside of the bolt,
which at that time is in its forward or closed position. When the last cartridge has been fired, the bolt is moved
backward by the connected operating rod until the front end of the bolt passes off the [**58] rear end of the rib. As this
occurs, a cam surface 72 on the follower rod engages a cam portion 73 on the operating rod catch and tends to lift the
same upwardly. At this same time however a flat surface 75 adjacent the hook 76 at the rear end of the operating rod
moves over a corresponding flat surface 78 just forward of the shoulder of the operating rod catch 20 and holds the front
end of the operating rod catch down so that the operating rod catch cannot rise until the undercut on the underside of the
operating rod has moved rearward until it is over the cut-away portion 79 on the operating rod catch.
When this position is reached, the spring 41 raises the follower further and at the same time pushes the operating
rod catch 79 up into the undercut 76 on the operating rod. Since the operating rod and the bolt are connected for
reciprocating movement of the latter, this locks the bolt in its rear position, leaving the breech entirely clear for the
ejection of the clip. At the time the operating rod catch 79 moves upwardly into the undercut to hold the bolt open, the
hook on its rearward end rocks the clip latch about its longitudinal axis, thereby releasing the clip which is [**59] then
ejected by means of the ejector spring.
[*259] 33. The operating rod 37 of the Garand rifle, which is connected to the breech bolt for reciprocating
movement of the latter, is in effect a forward extension of the bolt, and the hook 76 on the operating rod 37 corresponds
to and performs the functions of the shoulder formed by the undercut on the underside of the breech bolt 23 of the
Pedersen rifle patent.
The function of the bolt stop, as that word is used in the specification and claims of the Pedersen patent, is to hold
the bolt back and clear of the line of movement of the clip throughout the entire time of ejection of the empty clip and

Page 21
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *259; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **59

the insertion of a full one. The operating rod catch 20 of the Garand rifle and the cooperating undercut portion 76 of the
operating rod perform the function of a bolt stop operable for holding the bolt in its rearward position for the same
purpose.
The Garand rifle possesses a latch for retaining the clip of cartridges in position in the magazine and a
spring-actuated follower or cartridge-feeding means, mounted on the gun independently of the clip. Upon the loading
and firing of the last cartridge the follower rises to a position [**60] where it will release the clip latch and also actuate
the bolt stop into its holding position when the bolt reaches its rearward position.
The Garand rifle further has a clip discharge mechanism arranged to automatically discharge the clip upwardly out
of the magazine upon the firing of the last cartridge.
The Garand rifle also has manually actuated means to operate the clip discharge mechanism prior to the exhaustion
of cartridges in the clip.
The phraseology of claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, and 39 of the Pedersen rifle patent is applicable to the
structure and elements of the Garand M-1 rifle.
Prior Art Relating to Pedersen Rifle Patent
34. The following prior art was available to those skilled in the art more than two years prior to the filing date (June
[*260] 9, 1927) of the Pedersen application which matured into the rifle patent:
Defendant's
Country

Patentee

Number

Date

Exhibit
No.

U. S

Petry

407,238 July 16, 1889

42

U. S

Von Wehrstedt

468,394 Feb. 9, 1892

43

German

Gundlach et al

61,213 Feb. 22, 1892

British

Von Frommer

101,037 Aug. 10, 1916

45

U. S.

Lantz

477,128 June 14, 1892

46

British

McClean

5,099 July 21, 1900

47

U. S

McClean

827,259 July 31, 1906

48

German

Oberlander

U. S

Eickhoff

U. S

Ashton

U. S
U. S

58,207 Dec. 7, 1890

44, 44-a

49, 49-a

1,433,945 Oct. 31, 1922

50

834,354 Oct. 30, 1906

51

Borchardt

1,196,759 Sept. 5, 1916

52

Browning

1,533,966 Apr. 14, 1925

53

[**61] Of the above listed patents, Lantz and Browning were considered by the Patent Office during the
prosecution of the application which materialized into the Pedersen rifle patent.
Copies of the above prior art patents as indicated by the above listed exhibits, are made a part of this finding by
reference.
35. In order to facilitate a comparison of the claims of the Pedersen rifle patent with the prior art, the claims, for
convenience, may be considered as divided into three groups. All of the claims relate to and contain elements directed

Page 22
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *260; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **61

to feeding cartridges from the clip and the subsequent discharge of the clip.
The claims of the first group are the broadest claims in issue. This group comprises claims 25, 29 and 39, and, as
representative of this group, claim 25 is paraphrased as follows:
(1) A gun;
(2) A clip of cartridges;
(3) Means for retaining said clip in position for loading;
(4) Clip discharge mechanism tending to discharge said clip from said gun;
(5) Cartridge feeding means, acting upon exhaustion of the cartridges in said clip to permit the
discharge of said clip by said clip discharge mechanism.

The second group comprises claims 33, 34 and 35. [**62] These claims add to the subject-matter of the claims of
the first group a phrase indicative of a self-acting or automatic [*261] operation in the discharge of the clip. By way of
example, claim 33 of this group is paraphrased as follows:
In a gun
(1) A receiver;
(2) A barrel;
(3) A breech action;
(4) A magazine chamber located in the receiver below the breech action;
(5) A clip of cartridges contained in said magazine chamber;
(6) Means appurtenant to the breech action for loading a cartridge from said clip into said barrel;
(7) Clip discharge mechanism in position and arranged to discharge said clip upwardly out of said
magazine chamber and past said breech action, said clip discharge mechanism having an automatic
operation in discharging said clip controlled by the exhaustion of cartridges in said clip. [Italics added.]

The third group comprises claims 24 and 30 and adds to the basic claims an additional element, viz., a bolt stop.
Claim 24 of this group is paraphrased, by way of example, as follows:
A gun having
(1) A bolt movable back and forth therein;
(2) A bolt stop operable for holding said bolt in its rearward position;
(3) [**63] A clip of cartridges;
(4) A latch for retaining said clip of cartridges in position for loading;
(5) Cartridge feeding means mounted on said gun independently of said clip, said cartridge feeding

Page 23
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *261; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **63

means acting upon exhaustion of cartridges in said clip to release said latch and also actuate said bolt
stop into its bolt holding position. [Italics added.]

The preferred embodiment of the Pedersen rifle disclosed in the specification is a gun of the semi-automatic type
and employs an en bloc clip holding two rows of cartridges in staggered relationship. This embodiment discloses a clip
discharge mechanism, not only controlled by the exhaustion of cartridges in the clip but also dependent upon firing of
the last cartridge and interlocked or timed not to release the clip until the breech bolt arrives and is held by a bolt stop
[*262] at a predetermined position in the rear after it has entirely uncovered the clip.
The claims in suit however are couched in broad phraseology and do not specify any particular type of gun or
cartridge clip and do not include any timing of the release of the clip other than to indicate that it is controlled by the
exhaustion of cartridges [**64] in the clip.
The group of claims referring to the "automatic operation" merely specifies that the clip discharge mechanism (the
kicker spring) shall have an automatic operation controlled by the exhaustion of cartridges in the clip or, as stated more
specifically in claim 34, by exhaustion of cartridges in the clip and by a subsequent positioning of the bolt to the rear.
36. Von Frommer (British) patent No. 101,037. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 45) shows and describes a rifle
having a reciprocating breech bolt which is manually opened and closed by the rifleman.
The introductory clause of the specification reads as follows:
This invention relates to a device applicable to rifles and other firearms having magazines adapted to
receive the cartridges in clips, the device having for its object to effect the automatic ejection of the
empty cartridge clips.

As shown in Fig. 1 reproduced herewith, the rifle has a magazine chamber in which a single row en bloc clip of
cartridges is held in place by a pivoted clip latch whose hook 4 engages a projection 21 on the back of the clip. Mounted
on the bottom of the magazine chamber on a pivot at [**65] the front end thereof is a clip ejector or kicker, 29, the rear
end of which, 28, is bent transversely and contacts the underside of the clip. This clip ejector is urged upwardly by
means of a spring.
A follower 8 is also pivotally mounted forward of the magazine chamber and is also urged upward by a spring. The
follower has an offset projection 12 located under a rod 15 which has a downward projection 19 located in front of the
upper end of the clip latch and an upward projection or hook 18 located on the rear end of the rod 15. The forward end
of rod 15 is mounted in a slot 17 by means of a pin 16 so that it is [*263] capable of both a rotating and limited
longitudinal movement.
When the cartridges are exhausted in the clip the follower raises the hook 18 on the rod 15 until the hook is in the
path of reciprocating movement of the breech operating knob 22. The next time the breech is opened the rearward
movement of the bolt to a predetermined distance carries the knob 22 to the rear and engages the hook 18, moving the
rod 15 sufficiently far to the rear with it to unhook the clip latch from the clip, which [**66] is then automatically
ejected by the clip discharge mechanism.
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
The lower end 3 of the clip latch projects outside of the magazine chamber and forms a finger piece by means of
which the rifleman may unlatch and discharge the clip prior to the exhaustion of the cartridges therein.
The Von Frommer disclosure differs from the semi-automatic rifle disclosed in the Pedersen rifle patent in that it

Page 24
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *263; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **66

has no bolt stop, and the reciprocating breech bolt is moved to the rearward position by the rifleman instead of being
actuated by the energy derived from the explosion of the cartridge.
37. The Von Frommer patent discloses a rifle in which the clip discharge mechanism is self-acting or automatic in
operation and is controlled by the exhaustion of cartridges in [*264] the clip, and by a subsequent positioning of the
breech bolt rearwardly. Claims 33, 34 and 35 of the Pedersen rifle patent are anticipated by the Von Frommer
disclosure.
38. Gundlach et al. (German) patent No. 61,213. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 44; translation, defendant's
exhibit 44a) shows and describes a hand-operated rifle having a manually operated [**67] reciprocating breech bolt
with a receiver having a magazine chamber located beneath the breech action.
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
As shown in Fig. 2 of the drawings of this patent reproduced herewith, the rifle has an en bloc clip open at the front,
top and bottom, containing a stack of cartridges. A latch c is pivotally mounted adjacent the rear of the clip for holding
the same in position in the magazine chamber. A follower or cartridge feeding means, which is urged upward by some
conventional means such as a spring plunger (not shown), is pivotally mounted forward of the clip, pressing against the
lowermost cartridge of the stack to feed the cartridges upwardly.
The follower is connected by a link d to the bottom end of the clip latch. The length of this link and its pivotal
connection b<1> with the lever b is such that upon the exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip the latch c is actuated into
its clip-releasing position.
A kicker spring f is fastened to the front end of the follower near its pivot point and presses against the bottom of
[*265] the clip. This kicker spring will act to eject the clip following exhaustion of cartridges [**68] in the clip and the
subsequent uncovering of the clip by the rearward positioning of the breech bolt.
It is questionable whether the kicker spring could be made flexible enough to bend sufficiently at its point of
attachment to the follower when the latter is in its highest position and still engage the bottom of the clip with sufficient
force to eject the clip. The specification however suggests an alternative structure in that, in lieu of the kicker spring
being mounted or attached to the follower, it may instead be separately mounted on the floor or bottom a of the
magazine chamber. This mounting of the clip discharge mechanism separate from the cartridge feeding means, as
suggested by the text of this patent, is shown by a blue ink line f on Fig. 2 of defendant's exhibit 44. Such a structure
would be operative.
39. This prior art patent discloses to those skilled in the art a gun having a breech action comprising a reciprocating
bolt and magazine chamber containing a clip of cartridges, clip discharge mechanism tending to discharge said clip, a
latch for restraining the discharge of said clip and a cartridge feeding means separate from such clip discharge
mechanism, [**69] acting upon exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip to release the latch and to permit the discharge
of the clip by the clip discharge mechanism.
Claims 25, 29 and 39 are anticipated by the disclosure of the Gundlach et al patent.
40. United States Patent to Von Wehrstedt No. 468,394. -- The disclosure of this patent (defendant's exhibit 43) is
summarized in the following statement taken from the introductory portion of the specification:
This invention relates to improvements in breech-loading magazine fire-arms, and more especially to
the magazine thereof, and has for its object the provision of means for the use of cartridge-holders
containing a sufficient number of cartridges to load the magazine, said holder, with its contents, to be
introduced into the magazine; also, the provision of feeding devices to feed the cartridges from the
holder in the magazine to the receiver, and ejecting mechanism for ejecting the empty [*266] holders

Page 25
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *266; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **69

from said magazine, said ejecting mechanism being timed in its operation to eject the holders when all of
the cartridges thereof have been exhausted; also, of means for guiding the bullet end of the cartridges as
they are fed [**70] from the holder to the receiver; also, of means for unlocking the holder by hand.

The mechanism disclosed in the various drawings of this patent includes a gun with a manually reciprocated breech
bolt moving back and forth above the magazine chamber. A sheet metal en bloc clip F is located in the magazine
chamber, this clip being open at the front, top and bottom and loaded with a stack of cartridges. A latch G engages the
top of the rear portion of the clip (see Fig. 2) and locks it in position.
A spring loaded kicker lever E having a part e<3> engages the underside of the clip and comprises a clip discharge
mechanism for discharging the clip upwardly and out of the magazine. A follower for feeding the cartridges upwardly
out of the clip consists of a spring loaded lever D having a part d<2> which directly engages the lower cartridge of the
stack.
Upon exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip the cartridge feeding means D rises to a position where a portion d of
the feed-lever contacts with an inwardly extending shoulder of a lever g<2>, the rear end of which is secured to the clip
latch. The lever g<2> is then raised from the [**71] position shown in figure 2 of the drawings where the clip is latched
to the position shown in figure 1a, where the latch is shown as released. This unlatching occurs upon the loading of the
last cartridge into the rifle barrel by a forward motion of the breech bolt, the clip then being held in the magazine by its
contact with the undersurface of the breech bolt.
When the last cartridge has been fired and the breech bolt B<1> moved rearwardly a sufficient distance to uncover
the clip, the clip discharge mechanism or kicker then automatically discharges the clip.
A finger-piece g<3> forming a portion of the lever g<2> which is attached to the clip latch G, extends outside from
the magazine (see figs. 1, 2, and 6). Actuation of this fingerpiece operates the clip discharge mechanism to release and
discharge the clip prior to the exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip.
[*267] This patent does not disclose a bolt stop.
41. The Von Wehrstedt patent discloses to those skilled in the art a breech-loading magazine gun having a
reciprocating breech bolt, a magazine chamber which is adapted to contain a clip of cartridges, a latch for retaining the
clip in position, [**72] clip discharge mechanism tending to discharge the clip, follower mechanism operating to feed
the cartridges from the clip, the clip discharge mechanism being arranged to automatically discharge the clip upwardly
out of the magazine chamber and past the breech action upon retraction of the breech bolt after the last shot is fired, and
which is controlled by the exhaustion of cartridges in the clip and by the subsequent positioning of the bolt rearwardly
in the receiver.
Claims 25, 29, 33, 34, 35, and 39 are anticipated by the Von Wehrstedt disclosure.
42. United States patent to Lantz No. 477,128. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 46) discloses to those skilled in
the art a gun having a reciprocating breech bolt located above a magazine chamber adapted to receive a cartridge clip
loaded with a stack of cartridges, with means for feeding the cartridges from the clip and subsequently automatically
ejecting the same.
As shown in Fig. 2 reproduced herewith, the reciprocating breech bolt herein shown in closed position is retracted
to open position by pulling rearwardly on the trigger-guard G against the spring G<3>. This retraction to the rear cocks
the firing mechanism [**73] contained in the breech bolt. When the trigger-guard is released, the spring G<3> returns
it to its normal position shown in Fig. 2, and at the same time closes the breech bolt, feeding the top cartridge in the clip
into the cartridge chamber of the gun barrel.

Page 26
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *267; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **73

The stack of cartridges is contained in a clip, the details of which are shown in Figs. 13, 14, and 15, also reproduced
herewith. This clip, which is made of sheet metal, is open at both the front and rear ends and at the bottom. Its rear end
is provided with a notch e<2> for engagement with a clip latch f<2>, and also a bar e<3> which forms an abutment for
clip ejection mechanism. The cartridges are urged upward in the clip by cartridge feeding means mounted on the gun
independently
[*268] [SEE ILLUSTRATIONS IN ORIGINAL]
[*269] of the clip and consisting of a follower d<4> mounted on an upwardly actuated pivoted arm d<3>. Upon
exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip an inclined shoulder z on the rear end of the follower engages the hooked portion
of the clip latch f<2> to release it from the notch in the clip.
A clip latch F is also provided with a fingerpiece [**74] f<1> extending downwardly and outside the magazine by
means of which the clip latch may be operated to release the clip prior to the exhaustion of the cartridges therein.
When the last cartridge has been fired and the bolt is moved to the rear by pulling on the trigger-guard G, a clip
ejecting shoulder z<1> on the rear end of the follower engages the cross-bar e<3> of the clip and automatically ejects it.
A bolt stop holding the bolt open in its rear position is actuated into its holding position upon the exhaustion of the
cartridges in the clip. The bolt stop comprises the shoulder z<2> which engages the forward end of the bolt K, the
forward end of the follower d<6> at the same time engaging the rear end of the rifle barrel.
The disclosure of the Lantz patent is well expressed in claims 15 and 18 which read as follows:
15. In a magazine-firearm having a receiver open at top and bottom, the combination of a
longitudinally-reciprocating breech-bolt, a detachable vertically-moving cartridge case or holder, a catch
for retaining the holder in the magazine-chamber, a cartridge-table which engages with the catch to
release it and permit the cartridge-holder [**75] to be automatically expelled, and a spring which is
operatively connected with the table and which forces it upwardly to feed the cartridges successively to
disengage the catch and to engage with the cartridge-holder to expel it, substantially as set forth.
18. In a magazine-firearm, the combination of a cartridge case or holder, a catch engaging therewith,
a carrier adapted to disengage the catch from the case and provided with a shoulder to engage the
breech-bolt to lock it back after the ejection of the last cartridge-shell.

43. As the follower of the Lantz patent moves upwardly upon exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip, three
functions are accomplished, viz: its inclined shoulder disengages the clip latch; the clip ejecting shoulder z<1> next
engages the crossbar [*270] and ejects the clip, and the shoulder z<2> finally engages the forward end of the bolt K
and locks it back.
If the scale of the Lantz patent drawings is used as a criterion, the interval of movement of the rear end of the
follower in accomplishing these three functions is relatively small and it would require a relatively strong spring to
actuate the follower sufficiently to eject [**76] the clip. A patent drawing, however, is not a manufacturing scale
drawing, and a man skilled in the art in building the Lantz structure would make the parts of such dimensions, and
would so position the three shoulders z, z<1> and z<2> relative to each other and to the cooperating parts of the clip that
sufficient movement would be obtained to perform the described functions.
Moreover, the feature of a kicker separate from the follower is old in the art, as disclosed in Von Frommer,
Gundlach and Von Wehrstedt (findings 36, 38 and 40). The addition of a separate clip ejector to the Lantz structure,
thus relieving the follower from this additional function, would produce no new result, but merely an aggregation of old
results. The clip ejector would function just as in these named patents to eject the clip, and the cartridge feeding means

Page 27
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *270; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **76

would continue to function to feed the cartridges and to actuate the bolt stop into position. The use of a separate kicker
in Lantz would not involve more than the ordinary skill of those skilled in this art.
In the insertion of a fresh clip in the Lantz gun it appears that the gunner would have to hold the trigger-guard to the
rear [**77] against the butt stock of the gun, thus holding the breech bolt open while he inserted the next clip with his
other hand. While this might render the Lantz gun impracticable from a military standpoint, it does not render the gun
inoperative.
It is not proved that the structure disclosed in the Lantz patent is inoperative.
44. The Lantz patent discloses a gun having a bolt movable back and forth, a bolt stop operable for holding the bolt
in its rear position, a clip of cartridges, a latch for retaining the clip of cartridges in position for loading, cartridge
feeding means mounted on the gun independently of the clip, the cartridge feeding means acting upon exhaustion of
cartridges [*271] in the clip to release the latch and also actuate the bolt stop into its bolt holding position.
The Lantz patent thus discloses every element of the Pedersen bolt stop claim 24, and this claim is anticipated by
the disclosure of the Lantz patent.
Bolt stop claim 30 differs from claim 24 only in that it specifies that the cartridge feeding means is separate from
the clip discharge mechanism. As has already been indicated in finding 43, it would require only mechanical ingenuity
to use [**78] in the Lantz structure a kicker spring separate from the cartridge feeding means.
Claim 30 does not present any patentable novelty over the prior art.
45. British patent to McClean No. 5099. -- This British patent (defendant's exhibit 47) discloses a gas-operated gun
having a barrel, a reciprocating breech action and a receiver having a magazine chamber located beneath the breech
action. The patent discloses a clip of cartridges held in the magazine by a latch, with the bolt reciprocating above the
magazine chamber and performing the function of loading a cartridge from the top of the clip into the barrel of the gun.
The gun has mechanism whereby it may be adjusted for single shot operation, semi-automatic operation or full
automatic operation.
The clip, as disclosed in the drawings (see Figs. 18 and 19) is closed at the sides, front and back, the back being
formed with a rearwardly extending groove portion U<3> which accommodates the rear end of the cartridge feed
mechanism or follower. This follower is moved upwardly inside the clip by two levers, N and O, pivoted forwardly and
in front of the cartridge clip.
As shown in the drawings, these levers will [**79] strike the forward closed portion of the clip before the follower
can enter upwardly in the clip a sufficient distance to exhaust all the cartridges therefrom.
The text of the patent describes the rear end of the follower as rising in the groove portion of the rear end of the
clip, and further states that -* * * the upward movement of the cartridge feed is [sic] discharging the last cartridge from the
magazine [*272] brings the feed into engagement with the trigger, and frees the trigger from the sear,
allowing the sear to reengage with the forward notch of the driving rod retaining the action in its open
position.

The projection on the trigger mechanism to accomplish this locking open of the mechanism is not shown on the
drawings. Defendant's expert witness, Colonel Carten, indicated by means of a pencil dot and lead line 10 in Fig. 18 of
the drawings, where this inwardly projecting portion of the trigger mechanism would, in his opinion, be located in order
to be contacted by the cartridge feed mechanism or follower as it moved upwardly through the clip. The location, as

Page 28
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *272; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **79

thus indicated, is above and to the inside of the closed rearwardly projecting [**80] portion of the clip.
The British patent to McClean discloses an inoperative device in that (a) the cartridge follower levers cannot feed
all of the cartridges from the clip because of the closed front end thereof and (b) any inwardly projecting portion of the
trigger mechanism to be contacted by the rising follower inside the clip must project over the closed rear end of the clip,
and this would prevent either removal or insertion of the clip into the chamber.
46. German patent to Oberlander No. 58,207. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 49) discloses a hand-operated gun
having a barrel and a reciprocating breech bolt mechanism located above a magazine chamber.
The magazine chamber is disclosed as containing a cartridge clip containing a stack of cartridges which are fed
upwardly therefrom in such manner that the reciprocating bolt can feed them into the gun barrel.
The cartridge feeding means consists of a forwardly pivoted feed lever. This lever B, as shown in the patent
drawings, is provided with a projecting shoulder g, which, upon exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip, engages a
shoulder c on a side mounted bolt stop lever. When this engagement [**81] takes place the bolt stop lever is lifted
from its lower position, as shown in Fig. 2 of the patent, to an upper position as shown in Figs. 1 and 3. The rear end of
the bolt stop lever is thus raised so that it engages a projecting [*273] lug m<1> on the side of the reciprocating bolt
and locks the same in the open position.
In the Oberlander structure the clip is held in position by means of a manually operated latch E. There is no clip
ejector, the clip when disengaged falling out of the bottom of the magazine by gravity.
The Oberlander structure does not disclose any mechanism acting upon the exhaustion of the cartridges in the clip
to release or permit release of the clip holding latch, nor does it show any structure in which there is any clip discharge
mechanism arranged to discharge the clip upwardly out of the magazine chamber and past the breech action.
The Oberlander disclosure does not anticipate any of the Pedersen rifle claims here in suit.
47. The claims here in issue, claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35 and 39 of the Pedersen rifle patent, are anticipated
and void of patentable novelty in view of the prior art as set forth in findings 36 to 44, [**82] inclusive.
The Pedersen Clip Patent -- The second patent in suit
48. The title of this patent, No. 1,732,949, is "Cartridge Clip." This device as disclosed in the patent comprises a
U-shaped sheet metal clip constructed to hold a stack of cartridges in a tight, compact package, the clip being adapted to
be loaded into the magazine of a gun together with the cartridges. The construction of the clip is stated to be such that it
is cheap enough so that it may be expended if desired after exhaustion of the cartridges therefrom.
The patentee states with reference to these objects of his invention -I have secured these objects by the employment of a single integral piece of sheet metal or stamping,
bent into suitable configuration and possessing the requisite degree of strength, springiness and lightness
to successfully accomplish the purposes for which it is designed.

The patent emphasizes as an important feature of novelty that the stack of cartridges contained in the clip is in a
double row and that the clip is so constructed that it will hold the cartridges securely and in fixed relationship under all
usual conditions of handling.
[*274] [SEE ILLUSTRATIONS [**83] IN ORIGINAL]
The double stack of cartridges is shown in figures 3, 4, and 6 of the clip patent reproduced herewith. The clip

Page 29
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *274; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **83

disclosed by the Pedersen clip patent is also illustrated by a physical embodiment (plaintiff's exhibit 30) and which is
practically identical with that disclosed in the patent with the exception that it has three diagonal stiffening corrugations
on the back, whereas the patent discloses two.
The patentee indicates that the clip is made of sheet metal or a stamping possessing the requisite degree of strength,
springiness and lightness to successfully accomplish the purpose for which it is designed. Other than this, the
specification does not contain any specific instructions as to the thickness and kind of material of which the clip is to be
made, thereby leaving to those skilled in the art the selection of metal having the proper characteristics.
The clip disclosed in the patent is nonreversible in character, that is to say it has a definite top and bottom and is
capable of being introduced into the gun only in the one position. Introducing the clip in the gun upside down is
prevented by the fact that the locking rib 135 on the back of the clip (fig. [**84] 3) which is engaged by the clip latch,
is adapted to slide in an off-center groove cut in the rear of the magazine chamber.
[*275] As illustrated in the drawings, the clip comprises a back, 145, and two sides, 146, 147, designed to exert a
lateral pressure on the cartridges in the clip. At the top of the clip the sides 146, 147 are curved inwardly somewhat to
form the relatively stiff portions of the clip 153 and 154. At the bottom of the clip the sides are provided with inwardly
turned spring yielding portions 149 and 150 which respectively engage the lower cartridge of each of the staggered rows
and thus impart to each of these rows a vertical spring tensioned pressure.
The stack of cartridges is thus subjected to both a lateral and vertical pressure.
The clip is suitably stiffened by upset depressions or ribs. The back is stiffened by diagonal ribs, the specification
referring to these as follows:
It should be noted that the depressed ribs 148 on the back are inclined to the horizontal and to the
direction of feeding travel for the cartridges so that the base of the cartridges will not catch or foul
therein when being fed upwardly [**85] into loading position.

The sides of the clip adjacent to the back are each provided with an inwardly projecting rib which extends almost to
the top of the cartridge clip. These two ribs 151 and 151<1> shown in sectional view, Fig. 6, engage the extracting
groove at the base of the rimless cartridges loaded in the clip and are adapted to prevent them from moving forwardly
out of the clip. These ribs terminate below the top of the clip so as to permit the top cartridge to be fed from the clip into
the firing chamber of the rifle.
49. The claims in suit are as follows:
1. A cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row comprising a back and two sides
forming a receptacle open at the front, top and bottom, the sides of said clip arranged to impart a lateral
pressure on said stack.
2. A cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row comprising a back and two sides,
forming a receptacle open at the front, top and bottom, the sides of said clip arranged to impart a lateral
pressure on said stack, and having inwardly extending portions at the top and bottom of said clip for
confining said stack in said clip.
[*276] 3. A [**86] cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row comprising a
back and two sides, forming a receptacle open at the front, top and bottom, the sides of said clip arranged
to impart a lateral pressure on said stack, and having inwardly extending portions at the top and bottom
of said clip for confining said stack in said clip, the inwardly extending bottom portions of said sides
arranged to impart a vertical pressure on a full stack confined in said clip.

Page 30
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *276; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **86

6. A cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row in staggered mutually engaging
relation and comprising a back and two sides, a cartridge retaining rib on one side of said clip for
engaging in front of the extracting rim of one row of cartridges in said stack, and a cartridge retaining rib
on the other side of said clip for engaging in front of the extracting rim of the other row of cartridges in
said stack, said retaining ribs terminating below the top of said clip so as not to engage the cartridge at
the top of said clip which is in position for being loaded from the clip.
7. A cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row, in staggered mutually engaging
relation and comprising [**87] a back and two sides forming a receptacle open at the front, top and
bottom, said sides arranged to impart a lateral pressure on said stack, a cartridge retaining rib on one side
of said clip for engaging in front of the extracting rim of one row of cartridges in said stack, and a
cartridge retaining rib on the other side of said clip for engaging in front of the extracting rim of the other
row of cartridges in said stack.
8. A cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row comprising a one piece integral
member having a back and two spring metal sides converging toward an open front so as to impart a
lateral pressure on said stack.
10. A cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row comprising a one piece integral
member having a back and two spring metal sides converging toward an open front so as to impart a
lateral pressure on said stack, a cartridge retaining rib on one side of said clip for engaging in front of the
extracting rim of one row of cartridges, and a cartridge retaining rib on the other side of said clip for
engaging in front of the extracting rim of the other row of cartridges in said stack.
13. A cartridge clip for holding [**88] a stack of cartridges comprising a back and two sides
forming a receptacle [*277] open at the front, top and bottom, the back of said clip being stiffened
transversely by offset depressions extending diagonally across said back.

The Alleged Infringing Structure
50. The alleged infringing structure here in issue is the Garand, or M-1, clip, which is used in connection with the
Garand rifle. This structure is typified by plaintiff's physical exhibit 6. This clip is of U-shape, is made of sheet metal
and has a back wall and two forwardly extending sides which are somewhat convergent. When loaded it contains a
stack of cartridges arranged in two rows in staggered relationship.
The clip is reversible, its structure being entirely symmetrical so that it may be inserted in the magazine chamber of
the gun without respect to which is the top or bottom. The two side walls are each provided with an in-turned curved
portion at the top and the bottom. The width of the clip and the dimensions of the side wall are such that, when a full
stack of cartridges is inserted therein, pressure is exerted by the top inturned portion of one side wall on the top
cartridge of [**89] the high row, and is also exerted by the bottom curved portion of the opposite side of the clip on the
bottom cartridge of the low row. This pressure, which tends to twist the back of the clip, applies a vertical pressure to
the stack of cartridges in the clip. The clip is provided on the back with a series of concentric corrugated ribs which
stiffen the back and tend to resist this distortion or twisting movement. The two side walls converge toward the front
and exert a lateral pressure on the stack of cartridges.
The clip is provided with two indented retaining ribs adjacent the back of the clip, which ribs engage the extractor
grooves of the cartridges and tend to prevent them from moving forward out of the clip. These ribs do not extend the
entire height of the back but stop at a point which permits the end cartridge of the stack to slide forward when it is fed
into the chamber. These grooves are spaced a sufficient distance from the back of the clip so that the cartridges do not
contact the back wall of the clip as they are fed upwardly through the same.

Page 31
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *277; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **89

[*278] 51. The Garand clip differs from that disclosed in the Pedersen clip patent in that it is symmetrical [**90]
and that it is thereby capable of being loaded with a double staggered row of cartridges without particular attention as to
which side contains the high row. Such construction is particularly advantageous from a military standpoint, should it
become necessary for the soldier to load the clips.
When a Garand clip is held in a vertical position and about to be inserted in the magazine of a rifle it may be
contemplated as having a bottom and a top. The vertical pressure on a full stack of cartridges in the Garand clip is
applied by the bottom inturned portion of one side of the clip and the top inturned portion of the opposite side of the
clip. Assuming the clip to be viewed from the rear and loaded with the high row on the left, this pressure is exerted
between the inwardly extending right-hand bottom portion and the inwardly extending left-hand top portion. The
opposite inwardly extending portions, namely, the left-hand bottom portion and the right-hand top portion, exert no
pressure. If the clip, however, is loaded in the opposite manner, that is with the high stack on the right-hand side, the
bottom portion of the left-hand side then imparts a vertical pressure, and the right-hand [**91] inwardly extending
bottom portion with this reversed loading is functionless as to any vertical pressure.
The Pedersen clip patent does not disclose or teach the construction of a clip capable of reversible loading. Instead,
as shown in Fig. 3 (finding 48), it can only be loaded with the high row on the left side (viewed from the rear). The
right-hand inwardly extending bottom portion is lower than the other, so that both rows of cartridges are supported by
the inwardly extending bottom portions of the clip, both of these inwardly extending portions thus functioning to apply
vertical pressure to the full stack of cartridges.
Claim 3 interpreted in the light of the Pedersen disclosure, after reciting the various component elements of the clip,
ends with this functional statement:
* * * the inwardly extending bottom portions of said sides arranged to impart a vertical pressure on a
full stack confined in said clip. [Italics added.]

[*279] In a loaded Garand clip only one inwardly extending bottom portion imparts a vertical pressure to the stack
of cartridges. When claim 3 is interpreted in the light of the Pedersen disclosure its phraseology is not applicable [**92]
to the Garand clip.
52. Claim 13 reads as follows:
13. A cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges comprising a back and two sides forming a
receptacle open at the front, top and bottom, the back of said clip being stiffened transversely by offset
depressions extending diagonally across said back. [Italics added.]

The stiffening ribs on the back of the clip are placed diagonally so that the base of the cartridges will not catch or
foul against the back of the clip as they are fed upwardly therethrough. The specification specifically refers to this as
the purpose of this feature. The necessity for this is further emphasized by reference to Fig. 6 which shows the base of
the cartridges in contact with the back of the clip.
In the Garand clip the vertical guiding ribs or indentations which engage in the extracting grooves of the cartridges
are spaced from the back a sufficient distance so that the cartridges do not engage or touch the back of the clip. There is
therefore, no necessity for adopting the teachings of the Pedersen patent on this particular feature, and it has not been
adopted. The stiffening ribs on the back of the Garand clip are concentric [**93] instead of diagonal.
The phraseology of claim 13 is not applicable to the Garand clip.
53. The phraseology of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 is applicable to the Garand clip.

Page 32
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *279; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **93

Prior Art Relating to Pedersen Clip Patent
54. The following prior patents were available to those skilled in the art more than two years prior to the filing date
(January 14, 1928) of the Pedersen application which matured into the clip patent: [*280]
Defendant's
Country

Patentee

Number

Date

Exhibit
Number

Swiss

Frey

British

Morgenroth

U. S

3,432 Apr. 10, 1891

23, 23-a

23,039 Dec. 17, 1900

24

Browning

549,345 Nov. 5, 1895

25

U. S

Browning

487,660 Dec. 6, 1892

26

U. S

Mannlicher

518,821 Apr. 24, 1894

27

U. S

Von Wehrstedt

464,971 Dec. 15, 1891

28

U. S

Mondragon

853,715 May 14, 1907

29

U. S

Lee

522,603 July 10, 1894

30

U. S

Daudeteau

454,333 June 16, 1891

31

U. S

Krnka

386,638 July 24, 1888

32

U. S

Mauser

999,387 Aug. 1, 1911

33

U. S

Sunngard

979,721 Dec. 27, 1910

34

U. S

Parkhurst

771,491 Oct. 4, 1904

35

U. S

Rice

1,492,605 May 6, 1924

36

U. S

Murphy

1,246,143 Nov. 13, 1917

39

U. S

Park

591,786 Oct. 12, 1897

40

U. S

Baltzley

1,256,426 Feb. 12, 1918

41

[**94] 55. The prior art as listed in finding 54 discloses that the basic idea of packaging cartridges in sheet metal
clips or containers adapted for insertion into a rifle is relatively old. The first thirteen (defendant's exhibits 23 to 35) of
the above enumerated patents all relate to the subject of cartridge clips, the issuance date of these patents extending
from 1888 to 1911.
The last four (defendant's exhibits 36, 39, 40, and 41) patents of the prior art enumerated in the previous finding
relate to the use of corrugations and indentations used in connection with sheet metal for reinforcing and strengthening
it.
The patents to Frey, Mondragon, Lee, and Krnka (defendant's exhibits 23, 29, 30, and 32) disclose cartridge clips or
packages which contain two rows of cartridges in staggered relationship.
Prior, however, to referring to the disclosure of these four patents reference is made to certain features which from
the disclosures of the remaining clip patents were well known to those skilled in the art.
U-shaped Sheet Metal Clips and Cartridge Retaining Ribs
56. Morgenroth (defendant's exhibit 24) discloses an integral one-piece, U-shaped sheet metal [**95] frame or clip
for holding a plurality of cartridges, the clip being adapted for insertion in the magazine of a firearm. This patent

Page 33
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *280; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **95

discloses the following with respect to the sides of the clip [*281] exerting lateral pressure and the ends of the clip
exerting vertical pressure on the stack:
The sheet metal cartridge frame or clip m represented in figure 10 encloses and grips the cartridges
with its sides or cheeks, which act as springs. The clip is inserted with its contents into the open
magazine from above. The upper and lower edges of the cheeks of the clip are slightly bent inwards to
prevent the cartridges from being forced or falling out respectively.

Mannlicher (defendant's exhibit 27) discloses an integral one-piece cartridge clip which he states is made "of a strip
of thin sheet metal bent to a U-shape." Mannlicher further states -The sheet metal of the said cartridge clasp B is bent inwardly at the top 1<1>, 1<1> and bottom 1<2>,
1<2> so that the cartridges cannot fall or be jerked out through these parts, and suitable guiding grooves
or indentations a a are provided in the sides of the clasp to impinge on the flanges [**96] of the
cartridge heads, and to guide them during their upward movement.

Claim 1 of Mannlicher defines his cartridge clip as being "formed from a blank of elastic metal into a body open on
three sides, having a rigid back and two elastic sides."
Von Wehrstedt (defendant's exhibit 28) discloses an integral one-piece clip which he states is preferably
constructed of light sheet metal and "bent inwardly at their upper and lower ends to properly retain the cartridges." He
also states -The peculiar or U form of the connecting back or bridge a imparts also a greater elasticity to the wings
a<2> than would be the case with a square back, the holder being substantially a spring-clamp, and
consequently holding the cartridge more firmly than would be the case otherwise.

Daudeteau (defendant's exhibit 31) discloses an integral one-piece U-shaped clip which the patentee states is made
of "thin sheet metal cut out and formed by a stamping process into the required shape." The back and sides of the clip
are ribbed or corrugated for the purpose of imparting rigidity to the structure, combined with the greatest possible
lightness. The top and bottom edges of the [**97] clip are inclined [*282] inwardly, the purpose of this, as stated in
the specification, being to "prevent the cartridges from slipping out perpendicularly."
Browning patent No. 487,660 (defendant's exhibit 26) discloses an integral one-piece, U-shaped cartridge clip made
of sheet metal. The two sides of the forward edges are turned inward so as to overhang the cartridge shell and to
prevent its accidental rising from the holder.
The lower ends of the two sides also incline upwardly and are turned inward to embrace the lowermost cartridge
and the upper ends are also turned inward, the specification stating that "between the turned in upper ends and the
turned in lower ends the cartridges are held close together in the pack."
The patent to Browning No. 549,345 (defendant's exhibit 25) discloses in Figs. 20 and 21 an integral one-piece,
metal clip of U-shape form open at the top, bottom, and one side, the sides stated to be flexible, with the lower ends of
the sides of the clip turned inward to form retaining fingers to prevent the cartridges from escaping from the lower end
of the clip, and having the upper ends of the sides bent inward to form retaining fingers [**98] to prevent the cartridges
from escaping from the upper end of the clip.
57. The Mannlicher patent, as indicated in the quotation in the previous finding, discloses a cartridge clip having

Page 34
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *282; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **98

two vertical guiding grooves or indentations on the sides of the clip which engage on the flanges of the cartridge heads
and guide them on their upward movement.
The cartridge clip disclosed in the Von Wehrstedt patent also is provided with two vertical grooves, one on each of
the side portions of the clip, for engaging the flanges of the cartridges and for properly guiding the cartridges. As shown
in Fig. 1 of this patent, these grooves terminate below the top of the clip so as not to engage the cartridge at the top,
which is in position to be loaded from the clip.
The cartridge clip disclosed in the Daudeteau patent also is provided with grooves on the sides adjacent the back in
which the rim or flange of the cartridges is engaged.
Both of the Browning patents disclose grooves on the sides adjacent the back wall of the clip for engagement with
the [*283] head of the cartridge. In both of the Browning patents these retaining ribs of the clip terminate below the
top of the clip.
[**99] 58. United States patent to Krnka No. 386,638. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 32) discloses a
detachable magazine
[SEE ILLUSTRATIONS IN ORIGINAL]
containing two rows of cartridges in staggered relationship. Figs. 15, 16, and 18, which are reproduced herewith
disclose the construction of this magazine which is described in the specification in the following phraseology:
The magazine H consists of a rectangular casing of the form in cross-section substantially as shown in
Fig. 16. The diameter of the casing is slightly less than twice the diameter of the cartridges and their
rims, so that two tiers of cartridges can be inserted and closely packed, the cartridges of one tier lying
tangentially between the cartridges of the other tier, as shown in Figs. 16 and 18. This admits of the
feeding of the cartridges to the receiver [*284] alternately from both tiers through the medium of the
spring h.
The magazine has open-work sides, and is preferably made of thin sheet metal to make it as light as
possible, and in order to give the lateral walls greater strength we form corrugations h<1> h<2> h<3> in
the metal, thus providing strengthening [**100] ribs, those h<2> projecting outwardly, while those h<3>
project inwardly and serve to guide the cartridges, thereby reducing the frictional resistance to the motion
of the cartridges to a minimum. As stated hereinbefore, the magazine is supported from the trigger-guard
and by the spring-plates J at the rear and forward end, respectively, and when empty may be readily
withdrawn by simply pressing back the trigger-guard, which may be made sufficiently elastic for the
purpose to disengage the hook i<1> from the notch h<4>. The lateral walls of the magazine for a portion
of their length are bent inwardly to form spring-jaws, that prevent the cartridges being ejected from the
magazine by the spring h.

59. United States patent to Lee No. 522,603. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 30) which was a file wrapper
reference, discloses an integral one-piece en bloc cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row in
staggered mutually engaging relationship. Fig. 4, a sectional view of
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
[*285] this clip, is reproduced herewith. This clip is open at the top and bottom and closed at the ends. The
[**101] specification states with respect to this clip that -The packet-case will, in practice, be constructed from a sheet metal blank having resilient qualities, and

Page 35
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *285; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **101

cut to proper shape to be bent or folded into the form shown in the drawings. By constructing said
packet-case of resilient sheet metal and in the form shown, I am enabled to secure a yielding pressure
against the columns of cartridges, thus retaining them under pressure within the packet-case and insure
close intermeshing of cartridges and an impingement of the uppermost cartridge of one column and the
lowermost cartridge of the other column between the upper lip as 186<1> and the lower flange, as 184,
or vice-versa; the two lips 186-186<1> and 187-187<1> co-acting with the flanges 184 and 185 to hold
the cartridges against lateral displacement.

This disclosure is similar to the cartridge clip of the Pedersen patent in suit in that the two bottom side walls have
inwardly projecting portions, both of which contribute to exert vertical pressure upon the two rows of cartridges
forming the stack. The bearing force or pressure upon the cartridges is stated to be distributed in accordance with the
dotted lines e, f, [**102] g, h in Fig. 4. As shown in Fig. 4, the vertical pressure imposed upon the double stack of
cartridges by the lower left-hand inturned bottom portion 185 and the upper right-hand inturned top portion 187 not
only imparts a vertical pressure on the cartridges but also co-acts to spread the two rows apart against the walls of the
clip.
In any cartridge clip made of sheet metal, resilient or springlike in character, and containing two rows of cartridges
in staggered relationship, which are confined by the upper and lower portions of the clip, there will also exist a pressure
or force exemplified by the inclined portions of the parallelogram of forces in Fig. 4, which are identified by e, g. This
force tends to spread the cartridges laterally and thus contributes to a lateral pressure against the sides of the cartridge
case.
60. United States patent to Mondragon No. 853,715. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 29), which was a file
wrapper reference, discloses a reversible type integral one-piece en bloc cartridge clip constructed for the purpose of
containing [*286] a stack of cartridges in a double row in staggered mutually engaging relationship. [**103] The clip
resembles the Garand clip in that it is symmetrical in form and may be loaded with either row high.
This clip is shown in Fig. 37 of the patent, which is reproduced herewith. It is of one piece-integral construction
and of U-shape, and although the patent does not specifically indicate its material, those skilled in the art and following
the teachings of the prior art as set forth in finding 56, would exercise mere mechanical ingenuity in constructing the
same of springlike sheet metal.
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
This clip has a back and two sides, the top and bottom of these sides each converging to impart vertical pressure to
the double stack of cartridges contained in the clip.
61. Swiss patent to Frey No. 3,432. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 23) discloses a reversible en bloc cartridge
clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a double row in staggered mutually engaging relationship. The clip is similar to
the Garand clip in that it is symmetrical in form and is capable of being loaded with either row high.
Figs. 14 and 15 of the Frey patent, reproduced herewith, show respectively a side view and top view of the empty
clip, and [**104] Fig. 3, also reproduced herewith, shows a sectional view of the loaded clip in the magazine chamber
of the rifle. The official translation of this patent reads as follows with respect to these figures:
These packages consist of sheet metal containers of special form in which the cartridges are introduced
in [*287] two vertical rows as fig. 3 shows; figs. 14 and 15 show the form of the sheet metal container.
The latter consists of the back wall r on to which join two side walls r<1> which at the top and bottom
are curved inward somewhat, corresponding to the curvature of the cartridges, so that the latter will have
a hold; the side walls extend somewhat higher than the back wall so that the lower part of the head g<1>

Page 36
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *287; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **104

of the breech cylinder can still engage the cartridge. The vertical ribs r<2> externally formed on the side
walls serve for the guiding of the package in the magazine grooves a<2>; internally on the side walls are
likewise provided in the rear and vertically the small ribs r<3> whereon are guided the recesses or
grooves s<3> of the cartridges s. Where cartridges are to be guided "on edge" then, of course, instead of
the
[SEE [**105] ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
ribs "grooves" are to be used. The side walls r<1> are somewhat convergent forward and the shell
part of the cartridge is directed somewhat upward; thereby the introduction of the bullet into the chamber
is insured.
* * * This cartridge package has the great advantage that along with an exactly symmetrical form it
can be introduced from one side as well as from the other.

The Frey specification indicates that the clip is made of "sheet metal." Those skilled in the art in constructing a clip
in accordance with the Frey disclosure and possessing the [*288] prior knowledge of the use of spring or elastic sheet
metal for this purpose (see finding 56), would obviously use a sheet metal having sufficient resilience to hold the
cartridges in the clip with sufficient vertical and lateral pressure so that they would not spill out.
In order to hold the cartridges in the clip the converging side walls of the Frey clip (as shown in Fig. 15) apply
lateral pressure. The inturned top and bottom portions of the side walls correspond to the curvature of the cartridges
and apply vertical pressure.
The cartridge retaining ribs which engage with the extractor [**106] rim or groove of the cartridges terminate
below the top of the clip so as not to engage the cartridges at the top of the clip.
62. The Swiss patent to Frey discloses to those skilled in the art a cartridge clip for holding a stack of cartridges in a
double row, the cartridge clip comprising a back and two sides forming a receptacle open at the front, top and bottom,
the sides of the clip being arranged to impart a lateral pressure on the stack.
The sides of the clip also have inwardly extending portions at the top and the bottom of the clip for confining the
stack of cartridges in the clip. Each side of the clip is provided with retaining ribs terminating below the top of the clip
for engaging the extracting rim of the adjacent cartridges.
Claims in issue 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the Pedersen clip patent are anticipated by the Frey disclosure and invalid in view
of this disclosure.
Claims 8 and 10 of the Pedersen clip patent differ from the above enumerated claims in that they specify a clip
"comprising a one-piece integral member."
In view of the prior art disclosures listed in findings 56, 59, and 60, all of which relate to an integral one-piece clip,
it would require but mechanical [**107] ingenuity to construct the Frey clip as "a one-piece integral clip."
Claims 8 and 10 of the Pedersen clip patent are invalid for anticipation and lack of invention.
63. When claim 3 of the Pedersen clip patent is interpreted by the specification of the patent its phraseology is not
applicable to the Garand clip (see finding 51).
[*289] The cartridge clip disclosed in the Frey patent is identical with the Garand clip in that it is symmetrical in
shape and may be loaded with the high row on either side. It is also identical with the Garand clip in that while it has
two inwardly extending bottom portions only one of these imparts a vertical pressure to the stack of cartridges, which

Page 37
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *289; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **107

one being dependent upon which side is the low row.
If the phraseology of claim 3 is construed as readable upon the Garand clip it is readable with equal facility upon
the Frey clip, and if so construed the claim is invalid.
64. Claims of the Pedersen clip patent 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are invalid. Claim 3 if interpreted broadly enough to be
infringed is invalid. Claim 13 is not infringed.
The Pedersen Clip and Follower Patent -- the third patent in suit
65. The Pedersen [**108] semi-automatic rifle which was designed by Pedersen in connection with the contracts
and which was subjected to tests by the Ordnance Department, is exemplified herein by the Pedersen rifle patent and a
Pedersen semiautomatic rifle in evidence as plaintiff's physical exhibit 7. This rifle was designed to operate with an en
bloc clip holding two rows of cartridges in staggered relationship.
The clip which forms the subject-matter of the Pedersen clip patent described in finding 48 was constructed for
oneway loading. One of the lower retaining fingers of the clip was located below the other, and the clip therefore had to
be loaded with the high row of cartridges always on the left-hand side. The follower or feeding device, i. e., the element
in the magazine of the Pedersen rifle which functioned to apply pressure to the stack of cartridges in the clip and to feed
them upwardly as they were removed from the top of the clip by the bolt action, was constructed with a high and low
step to engage the two columns of cartridges and exert an upward pressure or both of them. This stepped follower 159
is shown in dotted lines in conjunction with the clip in Fig. 3 of the clip patent [**109] reproduced in finding 48. This
construction of the clip and the follower necessitated that the clip always be loaded with the high row on the left side
and also that the clip be inserted in only one direction in the rifle.
[*290] 66. In the final report from The Infantry Board at Fort Benning, Georgia, dated May 8, 1928, there was
included a report from the Department of Experiment of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, which report suggested
certain improvements which would add to the efficiency of the Pedersen rifle. One of these suggestions was as follows:
e. The reversible clip. The adoption of such a clip would eliminate the only superiority of the service
rifle clip over that of the Pedersen rifle. This fact has been brought to the attention of the inventor, Mr. J.
D. Pedersen. Mechanical difficulties involved may outweigh the advantage which would accrue through
its adoption.

On February 14, 1929, Pedersen filed an application in the United States Patent Office directed to a combination of
a reversible cartridge clip and a cooperating follower. This application materialized into Pedersen patent 1,804,511, the
third patent in suit.
67. The specification [**110] of the patent states the objects of this patent in the following phraseology:
An object of the invention is to provide a symmetrically constructed clip for holding a double-row
stack of cartridges in staggered relation whereby said clip may be charged into the magazine, either side
first.
A further object is to provide a follower of such construction that both rows of cartridges of said
charged clip will be similarly supported and fed through the magazine irrespective of whether the
staggering of said rows be right or left-handed. Accordingly, the follower has a step for engaging the
bottom of the double-row stack, which step may be shifted automatically to a right or left-hand position
so as to accommodate itself properly to the arrangement of the staggered rows.
These features will contribute to the ease and rapidity with which the rifle may be charged with a

Page 38
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *290; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **110

fresh clip of cartridges, since the soldier will not have to give any attention to which side of a loaded clip
he introduces into the magazine chamber.

The clip disclosed in the patent is stated to be constructed preferably of spring metal and with the sides in
converging relationship so as to exert a side spring [**111] pressure upon the stack of cartridges contained in the clip.
[*291] As shown in figures 1 and 2 reproduced herewith, the clip is symmetrical both with respect to a horizontal
plane of symmetry and a vertical plane of symmetry. As shown in figure 2, the sides turn inwardly both at the top and
bottom so that vertical pressure is applied to the stack of cartridges between the lower inturned portion of one side and
the upper inturned portion of the opposite side. The clip being symmetrical, the cartridges may be loaded with either
the
[SEE ILLUSTRATIONS IN ORIGINAL]
[*292] low row on the right- or left-hand side, and the clip may also be loaded into the magazine with either side
up.
The follower, which functions with this reversible clip to feed the cartridges upwardly, is illustrated in figures 9, 11,
and 12, which are also reproduced herewith. This follower consists of an elongated plate which is urged upwardly
inside the clip by a follower spring for the purpose of applying pressure on the bottom of the stack of cartridges in the
clip. This plate is provided on its upper surface with a shifting step which in the specific illustrated embodiment of the
patent is [**112] pivotally mounted. The movable step which is indicated in figures 11 and 12 by the reference
numeral 25 is yieldingly held in a central position by means of two small springs. When a clip containing a double-row
stack of cartridges is inserted in the magazine, the lowermost cartridge, whether it be in the right-hand column or
left-hand column, will strike against the side of the step and shift the top edge of the step to the opposite side so that it
will then be in a position to support the high row of cartridges in the stack. Figure 11 shows the position of the step with
the high row on the left-hand side and figure 12 shows the reverse position of the step when the clip is loaded with the
high row on the right-hand side.
In the specific embodiment herein illustrated the movable step shifts sidewise a sufficient extent to bring its
supporting point under the center of the bottom cartridge in the high row. The springs are therefore necessary to urge the
step toward a neutral position in order to prevent jamming.
The shifting follower therefore automatically permits a vertical feeding pressure to be applied to both rows of the
stack of cartridges, irrespective of the arrangement [**113] of the rows. The combination of the shifting step follower
with the symmetrical clip thereby permits the soldier to charge the gun without giving his attention to see that the clip is
loaded with any particular arrangement of cartridges or that the clip is charged into the magazine with any particular
side down.
68. The claims in suit of this patent are as follows:
1. In a magazine rifle in combination, a cartridge clip containing a double row stack of cartridges in
staggered [*293] relation and adapted to be introduced with sair cartridges into the magazine chamber
of the rifle, and a follower procided with means for presenting in the alternative a right or left handed
stepped surface for engaging both rows of cartridges at the bottom of said stack.
2. In a magazine rifle in combination, a cartridge clip containing a double row stack of cartridges in
staggered relation and adapted to be introduced with said cartridges into the magazine chamber of the
rifle, and a follower providing a movable step which is automatically shifted to right or left hand-position
by its engagement with the bottom of said stack.

Page 39
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *293; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **113

5. In a magazine rifle in combination, a cartridge clip [**114] containing a double row stack of
cartridges in staggered relation, said clip being of symmetrical construction with respect to both a
horizontal plane of symmetry and a vertical plane of symmetry, whereby said two rows of cartridges may
be stacked therein with either row in a higher position than the other row, said clip being adapted to be
introduced either side first into the magazine chamber of the rifle, and a follower provided with means
for presenting in the alternative a right or left handed stepped surface for engaging both rows of
cartridges at the bottom of said stack.
6. In a magazine rifle, in combination, a cartridge clip arranged to hold a double row stack of
cartridges in staggered relation with either of said rows in the higher position, a bolt movable across the
top of said stack for loading cartridges successively and alternately from each row and from the right and
left sides of a central vertical plane through said stack, and a follower at the bottom of said stack
provided with means for presenting in the alternative a right or left handed stepped surface for engaging
both rows of said stack and feeding the same toward said bolt.

The Alleged Infringing Structure
[**115] 69. The structure alleged to infringe the claims of the third patent in suit, as set forth in the previous
finding, is exemplified by a Garand, or M-1, clip loaded with dummy cartridges (plaintiff's physical exhibit 6) and the
follower mechanism in a Garand rifle (plaintiff's physical exhibit 5).
This Garand clip has been described in detail in finding 50 in connection with the second patent in suit, the
Pedersen clip patent. It is therefore unnecessary to again describe the clip [*294] in detail, it being sufficient to state
for purposes of comparison that the Garand clip is adapted to contain a stack of cartridges in a double row with the
cartridges in staggered relation, and the clip is of symmetrical construction both with respect to a horizontal plane of
symmetry and a vertical plane of symmetry so that the two rows of cartridges may be loaded in a clip with either row in
the high position, and the clip may be introduced into the magazine chamber of the rifle either side first.
70. The follower in the Garand rifle consists of an elongated plate which is urged upwardly inside of the clip by a
follower spring for the purpose of applying pressure on the bottom [**116] of the stack of cartridges in the clip. This
plate is provided on its upper surface with a longitudinal element mounted thereon so as to be capable of a free lateral
shifting movement of a predetermined extent. This element is known as the follower slide.
The sidewise motion of the follower slide is so limited and its height is such that it does not move sufficiently far
off center to require a spring or equivalent centering means for returning to a neutral position. It is returned by contact
with the inwardly curved portion of the bottom cartridge in the clip.
Should the Garand clip be inserted into the magazine when the cartridges are loaded in the clip in the opposite
manner from that illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3 of this exhibit, the right-hand row would then contact the plate or platform
of the follower, and the follower slide would be shifted over to a left-hand or opposite position from that shown in these
figures, where it would support the left-hand stack.
71. As constructed and used in the Garand rifle, the shifting follower slide has several intended functions not
related to the plaintiff's patent claims. The evidence is in conflict as to whether or not it also [**117] operates as a
movable step to support the high row of cartridges which is automatically shifted to a right- or left-hand position by its
engagement with the bottom of the stack of cartridges in the clip when the latter is charged into the magazine.
[*295] Prior Art Relating to Pedersen Clip and Follower Patent
72. The following prior art was available to those skilled in the art more than two years prior to the filing date
(February 14, 1929) of the Pedersen application which matured into the clip and follower patent No. 1,804,511:

Page 40
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *295; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **117

Defendant's
Country

Patentee

Number

Date

Exhibit
No.

United States

Lewis

United States

Osborne

United States

Mondragon

United States

283,122 Aug. 14, 1883

57

1,077,228 Oct. 28, 1913

58

853,715 May 14, 1907

29

Thompson

1,307,066 June 17, 1919

55

United States

Browning

619,132 Feb. 7, 1899

56

Swiss

Frey

3,432 Apr. 10, 1891

23, 23A

73. United States patent to Lewis No. 283,122. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 57) discloses a cartridge holder
or magazine box for use in a magazine rifle.
[SEE ILLUSTRATIONS IN ORIGINAL]
[*296] Figs. 2 and 3 [**118] of this patent, reproduced herewith, show respectively a longitudinal vertical section
of the cartridge holder and a transverse vertical section through the rear end of the same. As disclosed in this patent, the
cartridge holder contains a double row stack of cartridges arranged in staggered relationship. The cartridges are fed
upwardly out of the cartridge holder by means of a follower. This is mounted on the top of a series of leaf springs, the
follower and springs being contained in the bottom of the cartridge holder.
As shown more particularly in Fig. 3, the spring mounting of the follower is sufficiently flexible to permit the same
to be automatically tilted when the cartridges are loaded into the holder, this tilt being in a direction such as to
automatically shift the follower into engagement with the bottom cartridge of the stack, irrespective of whether this is in
a right- or left-hand position. The pressure that feeds the cartridges upwardly through the cartridge holder is applied
only to the bottom cartridge of the low row, and thereby tends to exert a wedging or rolling action of the cartridges upon
each other.
This patent does not disclose a clip symmetrical both [**119] with respect to a horizontal and a vertical plane of
symmetry. The clip disclosed in this patent is capable of being loaded into the magazine chamber of the gun only one
way. It does not disclose any follower mechanism which provides a stepped surface for supporting or engaging both
rows of cartridges at the bottom of the stack.
The terminology of claim 2 of the Pedersen clip and follower patent is not limited either to the symmetrical clip or
to the shifting of a stepped surface for providing engagement with both rows of cartridges.
The terminology of claim 2 is applicable to the structure disclosed in the Lewis patent and this claim is anticipated
thereby.
The only feature in claims 1, 5, and 6 of the Pedersen patent which was not anticipated by the Mondragon patent
shown in finding 75 was the shifting and adaptable support for the upper row of cartridges. The Lewis patent disclosed
a shifting and adaptable support which mere mechanical skill could have attached to the Mondragon follower to give
[*297] support to the upper row of cartridges. Claims 1, 5, and 6 of the Pedersen clip and follower patent are
anticipated by the Lewis patent in combination with the Mondragon [**120] patent.
74. United States patent to Osborne No. 1,077,228. -- Fig. 4 of this patent (defendant's exhibit 58) is reproduced
herewith. It is substantially similar to that of Lewis referred to in the previous finding, in that it is a cartridge holder or
magazine box containing two rows of cartridges in staggered relationship, which cartridges are fed upward by a
self-contained follower plate and spring.

Page 41
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *297; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **120

[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
The follower plate is of an inverted V-shaped form which provides two sloping surfaces with a longitudinal apex on
the center line. Only the lowermost row of cartridges is supported by the follower, and as in all such structures the
upward pressure of the follower on the lowest cartridge tends to spread the cartridges sidewise and exert side pressure
on the sides of the magazine. The follower of this prior art patent is guided vertically by the sides of the cartridge holder
and there is no sidewise shifting movement of the follower or any portion thereof.
[*298] The cartridge holder is not symmetrical and can only be introduced into the rifle in one way.
The disclosure of this patent does not anticipate any of the claims in [**121] suit of the Pedersen clip and follower
patent.
75. Unitd States patent to Mondragon No. 853,715. -- This patent (defendant's exhibit 29) discloses a symmetrical
and reversible double row clip shown in combination with a separate follower mechanism for feeding the cartridges
through the clip. The Mondragon clip is referred to in detail in finding 60 and the illustration of the clip is contained
therein.
[SEE ILLUSTRATION IN ORIGINAL]
Fig. 9 of the Mondragon patent is reproduced herewith, this figure illustrating the combination of the clip with the
follower. The follower, as indicated by the reference character 146 in this figure, consists of a platform urged upwardly
by a follower spring. The top of the platform is provided with two arcuate grooves intersecting to form an apex on the
center line of movement of the follower. The lifting force of the follower is transmitted only to the low cartridge of the
low row, and each cartridge of the low row transmits a diagonal lifting force to its contacting cartridge of the high row.
[*299] This results in lateral forces or components which tend to exert a wedging or rolling action of the cartridges
upon each other.
[**122] The follower disclosed in this patent is not shiftable and has no shiftable element for engaging both rows
of cartridges.
But, as shown in finding 73, the Mondragon clip and follower, with the mere mechanical addition of the Lewis
shifting element to support the upper row of cartridges, anticipates all the claims in suit of the Pedersen clip and
follower patent.
76. United States patent to Thompson No. 1,307,066; United States patent to Browning No. 619,132 and Swiss
patent to Frey No. 3,432. -- These three patents (defendant's exhibits 55, 56, 23 and 23A) all show and describe
followers each comprising a single one-piece member having two fixed steps to support two rows of cartridges arranged
in a clip or magazine in staggered relation. The fixed steps are also in staggered relationship to each other so that each
step will engage its corresponding row of cartridges. This necessitates the clip being loaded in only one position in the
gun, i. e., with the low row of cartridges engaging the low step and the high row engaging the high step. Fig. 3 of the
Frey patent as reproduced in finding 61 is illustrative of this type of structure.
None of these patents shows [**123] or describes a follower having a movable step or element which is
automatically shifted to engage the bottom of a double row stack of cartridges, irrespective of how they are loaded in
the clip.
The disclosure of these three patents does not anticipate any of the claims in suit of the Pedersen clip and follower
patent.
77. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Pedersen clip and follower patent are invalid for lack of invention.

Page 42
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *299; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **123

SUMMARY
78. During the period that the contract and license agreement of January 3, 1939, between plaintiff and defendant
was in effect and prior to its termination by defendant on June 30, 1939, the Government manufactured or had
manufactured for it 13,024 rifles known as the Garand or M-1 rifle. [*300] These rifles used an en bloc clip which held
two rows of cartridges in staggered relationship.
These rifles were manufactured subsequent to the issuance of the three Pedersen patents in issue and referred to
herein as the rifle patent, the clip patent, and the clip and follower patent.
The 13,024 Garand rifles and clips thus manufactured come within the terminology of certain invalid claims of two
of the three Pedersen patents in issue (see [**124] findings 33 and 53). The Garand rifle is not the gun developed by
the plaintiff, within the meaning of the contract upon which the plaintiff sues.
The defendant has paid no royalties or license fees to plaintiff for such manufacture.
79. After the cancellation of the license agreement on June 30, 1939, and just prior to May 6, 1940, the filing date
of plaintiff's petition in the patent case, the defendant manufactured or used at least one Garand or M-1 rifle, together
with a Garand cartridge clip. This structure is alleged to infringe the three Pedersen patents here in issue.
The claims of the rifle patent alleged to be infringed are claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, and 39. All of these
claims are invalid.
The claims of the Pedersen clip patent alleged to be infringed, claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10, are invalid. Claim 3, if
interpreted broadly enough to be infringed, is invalid. Claim 13 is not infringed.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the Pedersen clip and follower patent alleged to be infringed are invalid.
The court decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
The plaintiff seeks in these two suits to recover (1) royalties alleged to be due him under a contract [**125] and (2)
compensation for the alleged unauthorized manufacture and use by the Government of inventions made and patented by
the plaintiff. Both suits relate to the M-1 or Garand semiautomatic rifle used by the United States Army in World War
II.
[*301] The plaintiff has, since 1901, been a designer of guns. From 1903 to 1923 he designed guns for the
Remington Arms Co. and received a royalty on their manufacture. The United States Army Ordnance Department,
being anxious to obtain for army use a satisfactory semiautomatic shoulder rifle, in 1923 made a contract with the
plaintiff, who was then a well-known and highly competent designer of guns, and who had for some time been working
on the design of such a rifle. In the contract the plaintiff agreed to disclose his prior studies and to work for the
Department for one year beginning on June 1, 1923, in the completion of the weapon and the supervision of its
construction. He was to receive $ 10,000, payable in monthly installments during the year. The Government was given
the option to extend the contract for a period not to exceed a year, at the same monthly rate of pay. The contract
provided that the plaintiff was to retain [**126] his patents, and any new ones taken out by him related to his work on
the rifle, but that the Government should have the first option upon an exclusive license to manufacture, use, and sell
the rifle produced, upon the payment to the plaintiff of a royalty of $ 1.25 per rifle up to the first 400,000 rifles, after
which the Government should have a free, but nonexclusive license on the rifle. The option given the Government was
to be exercised within six months after a complete and satisfactory test of the gun by the Ordnance Department, and not
later than 12 months after the plaintiff's services under the contract should terminate. The contract further provided that
if the Government should exercise its option, but should not within 4 years enter upon the routine production of the gun,
then it should have only a nonexclusive license, but should pay the same royalties as were provided for the exclusive
license. The contract provided that the name Pedersen should appear on each rifle manufactured under the agreement.

Page 43
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *301; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **126

The plaintiff went to work at the Springfield Armory, Springfield, Massachusetts, the Government providing all the
necessary facilities. At the end of a year, the contract [**127] was extended for another year. By new contracts similar
to the original one, the plaintiff's services were continued down to January 3, 1930, on which date a final contract was
[*302] made. This contract recited that, under the preceding contracts, a semiautomatic shoulder rifle had been
designed and a number of such rifles had been made under the plaintiff's supervision; that the 20 examples of that rifle
delivered under the 1927 contract had successfully passed certain army tests; that certain changes in that gun were
necessary or desirable, and were being worked on but had not been completed; that the plaintiff was willing, if the rifle
already delivered or the improved type still being worked on should be approved for adoption by the United States, to
grant the United States a license to manufacture, use, and sell the rifle. Then followed the several articles of the
contract, similar to those of the original contract of 1923, providing that the plaintiff was to retain his patents, the
United States was to have an exclusive license to manufacture 400,000 rifles and pay a royalty of $ 1.25 each, and was
thereafter to have a free nonexclusive license. The plaintiff was to [**128] be paid $ 1,000 upon his completion of the
work begun "to meet such specifications as may arise or may have arisen as a result of the tests of the arm already
delivered," and upon his completion of the design and building of the improved type of rifle without further expense to
the United States, and the delivery of one complete form of said rifle not later than December 31, 1930.
The Pedersen rifle, as such, was not adopted, or approved for adoption by the United States Army. Instead, some
time prior to 1938 the United States began the manufacture of the M-1 or Garand semiautomatic rifle, and it became
standard equipment for the Army.
The contract of January 3, 1930, had in its Article VII provided that the license granted it by the contract should be
automatically renewed from year to year unless the Government canceled it by written notice. By letters of October 20,
1938, and February 21, 1939, to the Chief of Ordnance, the plaintiff raised the question of his rights under his patents,
and formally requested that he be paid royalties on all M-1 (Garand) rifles which the Ordnance Department had made
and that such payments be continued in the future. The Chief of Ordnance, apparently [**129] being reminded by the
plaintiff's letters of the contract of January [*303] 3, 1930, wrote a letter to the plaintiff on April 20, 1939, canceling
the contract as of June 30, 1939. On April 26, 1939, the plaintiff wrote repeating his demand for royalties and the Chief
of Ordnance responded that he had directed the Commanding Officer, Springfield Armory, to prepare vouchers for the
plaintiff's signature, which, when so signed, he would send to the General Accounting Office for settlement. He said
that it was necessary to send the vouchers to the General Accounting Office for settlement because the funds had
reverted to the Treasury. He further said that his action in submitting these vouchers to the General Accounting Office
was not to be construed as an acknowledgment of the validity of the plaintiff's patents. The vouchers were prepared,
signed by the plaintiff, and sent to the General Accounting Office without any approval, on their face, by the Ordnance
Department. They showed the manufacture, up to June 30, 1939, of some 13,000 M-1 rifles and called for a payment of
$ 16,280, which was $ 1.25 per rifle. On January 10, 1940, the General Accounting Office refused payment [**130] of
the vouchers saying that the Army had not adopted the Pedersen Rifle but had adopted and was manufacturing the M-1
(Garand) rifle, and that therefore no royalties were due under the contract.
The plaintiff's two suits are (1) for royalties for M-1 rifles manufactured down to June 30, 1939, when the royalty
contract was canceled, and (2) for compensation for the use of his patented inventions after June 30, 1939, down to the
date of the filing of the petition in the patent case, which date was May 6, 1940. His theory in the royalty contract case
is that the M-1 or Garand rifle, is, in fact, the Pedersen rifle, apparently because, he claims, it includes certain of his
patented inventions. As a consequence both the evidence and applicable legal doctrines in the two cases are
substantially the same, hence we write only one set of findings of fact and one opinion for the two cases.
We have said that the plaintiff's claim in the royalty contract case that the Garand rifle is in fact the Pedersen rifle is
apparently based upon the incorporation in the Garand rifle of devices upon which the plaintiff claims he holds patents.
It is probably true that the plaintiff would have [*304] [**131] been entitled to royalties under his contract if the
Government had copied his rifle, even though his rifle had involved no inventions, or, if it did, he had taken out no
patents upon them. But in appearance at least, and in the large working parts of the two guns, there is little
resemblance, almost as little as there could be between two semiautomatic shoulder rifles. Perhaps the first thing to be

Page 44
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *304; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **131

decided in the design of a semiautomatic weapon is how to obtain the power to operate the mechanism. Pedersen
obtained his power from the rearward push of the cartridge case when the powder exploded. In his gun patent he said
that one advantage of this was that it saved the weight and bulk of a tube slung under the barrel to carry force from the
compression in the barrel between the cartridge case and the bullet. Yet Garand used the tube device, with its added
weight and bulk, after having worked, in earlier models, with a third method, that of taking power from the explosion of
the primer. Both Pedersen's method and that of Garand were old in the art, but they were completely different from
each other, and each required different designing of other parts of the gun to cooperate with [**132] the method used.
An apparent instance is the fact that Pedersen's bolt could not be positively locked in position to hold the cartridge in the
chamber, since it had to be free to yield to the rearward motion of the cartridge case as the bullet left it, while Garand's
bolt is positively so locked, and is only set free by a turning motion produced by the gas pressure created by the bullet
the instant before it leaves the barrel. The Pedersen bolt works on a toggle which throws it almost vertical when it is in
its rearward position. The Garand bolt slides straight back. The Pedersen bolt remains locked back when a clip of
cartridges is exhausted and until a new clip is completely inserted, and then is released only by a separate manual pull
backward. The Garand bolt is released as the inserted clip reaches its final position and is latched in and the operator's
thumb is pushed aside forcefully by the return of the bolt to its closed position. The Pedersen gun has an extensive
covering of metal meshing around the barrel to cool it. The Garand gun has no such device.
[*305] The two guns are generally speaking not alike then, in either appearance, construction or operation,
[**133] except in those particulars in which any two semiautomatic shoulder rifles would, it would seem, have to be
alike. Would the fact that, somewhere inside the Garand rifle, some single device, or even more than one, on which
Pedersen held a patent, make the Garand gun the Pedersen gun within the meaning of the royalty contract, and thus
entitle the plaintiff to the stipulated royalty? In view of what we have decided with regard to the plaintiff's patents, it is
not necessary for us to resolve this question.
We recognize that a license contract, under which a licensee agrees to pay a royalty for the privilege of
manufacturing a patented article, may estop the licensee from questioning the validity of the patent held by the licensor.
But the agreement here involved was an agreement to pay a specified royalty if the Army manufactured a gun
developed by Pedersen. Article IV of the contract, as shown in our finding 8, provides for the payment of a royalty
upon the manufacture of "this arm" which the context shows to mean the rifle developed by Pedersen, and not a rifle
developed by someone else but incorporating certain features upon which Pedersen held a patent, but which in fact, as
[**134] our findings show, were old in the art and just as available to the developer of the rival weapon as to Pedersen.
The plaintiff relies upon three patents, one entitled "Magazine Rifle," one entitled "Cartridge Clip," and the third
entitled "Cartridge Clip and Follower." The first two were issued in 1929, the third in 1931. The rifle patent discloses
and claims among other things a bolt lock mechanism functioning to hold a breech bolt in a rearward position after the
last cartridge in the clip is fired and the clip ejected, and also discloses and claims mechanism pertaining to the
automatic release of the empty clip and its ejection. Our findings 26 through 34 show in their intricate details the
mechanisms disclosed and claimed in the Pedersen "Magazine Rifle" patent, and the construction and operation of the
devices which perform the same functions in the Garand rifle. We have concluded in finding 33 that the Garand devices
are covered by the language of some eight of the claims in the [*306] Pedersen patent. But in our findings 34 through
44, and 47, we have concluded that the devices covered by the claims in the Pedersen patent have been anticipated by
prior patents in [**135] this country and in foreign countries.
The plaintiff urges that some of its claims describe an automatic operation in the discharge of the clip, and that that
means that the whole operation must take place automatically and hence the bolt must be pushed rearward
automatically, hence these claims cover only automatic or semiautomatic rifles. The preferred embodiment stated in the
specifications of the patent is a gun of the semiautomatic type. But the claims relied on are in broad terms and refer
only to "a gun" and hence the natural meaning of the language relating to the automatic discharge of the clip is that
when the cartridges are all discharged from the clip it is automatically released and kicked out. Such a device would be
an apparent infringement upon the patent claimed, if the patent were valid, and the plaintiff cannot give his claim an
artificially narrow construction in order to escape the prior art. Hence the prior patents referred to in the findings

Page 45
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *306; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **135

anticipate the plaintiff's claims, and render them invalid.
The plaintiff's second patent here sued for is for a "Cartridge Clip." His clip, as disclosed and claimed, is a
U-shaped sheet metal clip constructed [**136] to hold a stack of cartridges in a tight, compact package, the clip to be
loaded into the gun along with the cartridges, and not to be stripped off them as they go in. The clip is to be cheap
enough so that it can be thrown away after use. The cartridges are to be in a double row in the clip and the clip is to
hold them firmly in position under all usual conditions of handling. The details with regard to this patent, and with
regard to the clip used in the Garand rifle are set out in our findings 48 through 52. In finding 53 we have concluded
that the language of several claims in this patent is applicable to the clip used in the Garand gun. But here again we
conclude, in our findings 54 through 63 that the Pedersen claims were anticipated by many prior inventions.
The third Pedersen patent here sued for is his "Clip and Follower" patent. Pedersen's earlier patented clip, which
fitted the Pedersen rifle which is in evidence and which was [*307] tested by the Army, was a nonreversible clip; that
is, it had to be inserted into the rifle with a certain end up, and a certain side to the right. Cartridges were in a double
but staggered arrangement in the clip, so that the lowest [**137] cartridge in one row was lower than the lowest one in
the other row. In order to push them up evenly, it was thought necessary to construct the follower, that is, the device
which pushed the cartridges up as the cartridges high in the clip were exhausted, so that it had two steps, one of which
would push on the bottom cartridge in the low row, the other on the bottom cartridge in the other row. Since these steps
on the follower were in a fixed arrangement, the clip had to be so constructed and so inserted in the gun that the two
lowest cartridges would rest on these steps. When the Pedersen gun with this clip and follower were tested at Fort
Benning, Georgia, a generally very favorable report was made, but in the final report from the Infantry Board at that
fort, dated May 8, 1928, there was included a report from the Department of Experiment of the Infantry School there,
suggesting certain improvements which would add to the efficiency of the gun. One of these suggestions was
e. The reversible clip. The adoption of such a clip would eliminate the only superiority of the service
rifle clip over that of the Pedersen rifle. This fact has been brought to the attention [**138] of the
inventor, Mr. J. D. Pedersen. Mechanical difficulties involved may outweigh the advantage which would
accrue through its adoption.
The principal advantages of the reversible symmetrical clip are that it is easier to load the cartridges into the clip since
no care need be taken to place one particular row in the higher position rather than the other row, and that it is easier for
the soldier to insert in the gun, since he need take no care as to which end is up or which side is to the right.
We suppose that everybody concerned with the problem was aware that the crux of the problem of the reversible
clip was the designing of a follower that would operate with such a clip. The designing of a symmetrical clip did not, in
itself, present any difficulty. Mondragon, findings 60 and 75, and Frey, finding 61, had patented symmetrical clips.
[*308] On February 14, 1929, Pedersen filed an application for a patent on a combination of a reversible clip and a
cooperating follower. On May 12, 1931, a patent was issued pursuant to that application, and that is the third patent here
sued upon. The specification of the patent says "Accordingly, the follower has a step for [**139] engaging the bottom
of the double row stack, which step may be shifted automatically to a right or left hand position so as to accommodate
itself properly to the arrangement of the staggered rows." The patent drawings are reproduced in our finding 67.
Figures 11 and 12 there show that on top of the regular flat follower plate is placed a piece of metal whose cross section
is bullet shaped, which piece extends along the top of the follower, not rigidly, but on bearings, so that the top of it can
be pushed either to the right or the left. When there are no cartridges pushing on it, it is held upright by small springs at
its ends. When a clip of cartridges is pushed down against it, whichever cartridge is low pushes it sidewise to a position
where its edge touches, extends along and supports the bottom cartridge of the other row, along a line lying straight
below the line of the center of the cartridge. In the invention, in the proportions shown in the drawings, the pictured
springs are necessary to make the device work, since if the piece were not restored to its central upright position when
the clip was empty, it would, unless the clip happened to be put in the gun with the cartridges [**140] high on the side
where the piece was lying, prevent the clip from reaching its place in the gun, and the gun from operating.

Page 46
109 Ct. Cl. 226, *308; 1947 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 51, **140

As we have said, the patent drawings show the springs. The specifications refer to them and say that "the movable
step 25 is normally and yieldingly held centrally of the follower 19 as shown in figure 10 by small flat springs * * *."
And in two of the six claims, those numbered 3 and 4, claim 3 refers to "a movable step normally held centrally thereof"
and claim 4 refers to "a step pivotally mounted thereon and yieldingly held in central position thereof." Neither of these
claims is here sued upon, since the alleged infringing device in the Garand rifle is not normally nor yieldingly held in a
central position on the follower. We have found, in finding 73, that the claims in suit are anticipated by the [*309]
Lewis patent in connection with the Mondragon patent. As we have said, Pedersen did not invent the symmetrical or
reversible clip. Neither did he invent the separate follower, not built into the clip but being a plate or platform pushed up
through the clip by a spring device. Hence the reversible clip with the separate follower pushing on the [**141] lower
row of cartridges was available to a designer. The Mondragon follower plate, finding 75, had concave surfaces to
support firmly the bottom cartridge. Lewis had patented the spring device shown in finding 73 which was shiftable
sidewise and thereby adaptable to the bottom cartridge, whichever side of the clip it was in. Surely the adjustment of
the Lewis spring device so that it would support the bottom cartridge in the upper row, rather than in the lower row,
would not have been an invention. And putting this device on a separate platform follower, which itself supported the
bottom cartridge in the lower row, would produce the shifting step follower supporting both rows, which is the basis of
the plaintiff's claims. The idea, therefore, of a movable, sidewise adaptable follower was as old as the Lewis patent.
Whether the particular mechanism embodying the idea should be leaf springs, as in Lewis, or a shaped bar turning on
pivots, as in Pedersen, or a shaped bar sliding in a slot, as in Garand, the idea of meeting the problem by a shifting
element was in all three, and was first in the Lewis patent. Pedersen did not use leaf springs, but pivots. Garand did not
use either [**142] leaf springs or pivots, but a slot. The shiftable follower was not Pedersen's invention, and his clip
and follower patent is invalid for lack of invention.
As to the moralities of the situation, apart from any question of the validity of patents, we cannot see that those who
designed the follower of the Garand gun got any benefit whatever from the disclosures of the Pedersen patent. They
designed a follower slide shiftable from side to side by moving laterally in a slot, with no tipping, no pivots, and no
springs. We cannot see how any part of the idea of such a device could have been gained from studying the Pedersen
patent, when it must already have been well known that some sort of a moving part on the follower would be necessary
if [*310] the upper row of cartridges in a reversible clip was to be supported.
There is a serious question in the case as to whether the Garand follower slide, which admittedly performs several
functions not related to the claims of the plaintiff's patent, if it were valid, performs at all the patented function of
supporting and lifting the higher row of cartridges which is the function which the plaintiff's patent purports to cover.
In view [**143] of our conclusion that the relevant claims of the patent are invalid, we do not decide this question.
We conclude that the Pedersen rifle was not adopted by the Army; that the M-1 or Garand rifle which was adopted
was not the Pedersen rifle in appearance, structure, operation, or in any validly patented detail. It follows that the
plaintiff is not entitled to recover either royalties under his contract, or compensation for the use of his patented
inventions.
We think that the evidence shows that the plaintiff designed and constructed an excellent rifle which probably
would have been adopted by the Army if the Garand rifle had not appeared at about the same time and seemed
preferable to the Army. But since it did seem to the Army to be a preferable weapon, it was the duty of the Army, and
no violation of the plaintiff's rights, to adopt and use it.
The plaintiff's petitions will be dismissed.
It is so ordered.


Related documents


petersen garand lawsuit
once fired brass
warman equivalent slurry pump catalog
projectiles for 300 blackout australia
online vape shop
chip resetter 29


Related keywords