meeting, and we discussed the advisability of having Mr. George Quay, Secretary of the Company, elected in my place, with the understanding that he would be representing us and that I would receive through him the same type of information I now receive as a Director. I will see you in the meantime and we will have a chance to discuss just what should be done in this connection. Sincerely, W. E. Levis. (Signed) WILLIAM. This is a true copy of a document found in the files of the former Illinois Glass Company, Alton, Illinois. Certified: F. G. MORFOOT, Ass't Secy.-Owens-Illinois Glass Co EXHIBIT No. 127 [Compiled by Department of Justice staff from data taken from files of Owens-Illinois Glass Co.] Owens-Illinois Payments to and Receipts from Hartford-Empire Company Mr. F. GOODWIN SMITH, OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY, Hartford-Empire Company, Hartford, Connecticut. MY DEAR GOODWIN: Referring to Mr. Northend's letter of January 10th regarding the persistent letters he has received from Mr. E. C. Devlin, I am replying to you rather than to him because I feel that you should know that the old Northern Glass Company plant never was operated successfully and that I do not think we should be at all concerned regarding their thoughts of resuming operation. We are in splendid shape to take care of Milwaukee trade from our Streator, Illinois, plant, and while I want to keep posted from time to time about people who inquire for licenses for the manufacture of beverage bottles, I think the position that you are taking-that there is at present considerable over-production in the industry-should be maintained in replies to similar requests. Sincerely, W. E. Levis BILL. EXHIBIT No. 129 [From files of Owens-Illinois Glass Co.] DEAR SIRS: I have under contemplation the erection of a Glass Factory with a view to manufacturing a line of goods in keeping with the requirements of such retail entities as Woolworth et al. I understand that you and Hartford-Empire control the fabricating machinery incidental to the equipping of a plant for the output of such products and that it is necessary to arrive at terms with you before such machinery is obtainable. I would therefore appreciate hearing from you and being advised as to the course I should pursue, initially. Very truly yours, JUNE 8, 1935. [s] A. L. ROMINE, Barr Bldg., Washington, D. C. EXHIBIT No. 130 AUBREY L. ROMINE, [From files of Owens-Illinois Glass Co.] Barr Bldg., Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Referring to your communication of June 8th, this company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of glass containers, but we are not licensors of glass making machinery. We do construct certain glass forming mechanisms, but such equipment is for use in our own factories exclusively. We are unable, therefore, to render the service which you require. Yours very truly, JUNE 17, 1935. E. F. Martin: c EXHIBIT No. 131 [From files of Owens-Illinois Glass Co.] JUNE 25, 1934. Mrs. LEN SMITH, 960 S. Oxford Ave., Apt. 325, Los Angeles, Calif. DEAR MADAM: Your letter of June 14th addressed to our Chicago Sales Office has been referred to this Department. For the past several years we have not built the Owens Machines for use outside our own Company, and we regret, therefore, that we are unable to furnish you with particulars concerning this type of bottle building mechanism. Yours very truly, LEGAL & PATENT DEPARTMENT, EXHIBIT No. 132 [From files of Owens-Illinois Glass Co.] DECEMBER 10, 1934. SPARKS CONSTRUCTION Co., Inc., R. C. A. Building, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. GENTLEMEN: Referring to your communication of November 30, this company does not manufacture glass making machinery for use outside its own plants. Yours very truly, LETTER OF WM. E. LEVIS, TO R. H. LEVIs, August 2, 1932. This is a true copy of a document found in the files of the former Illinois Glass Company, Alton, Illinois. Certified. Ass't. Secy., Owens-Illinois Glass Company. WILLIAM E. LEVIS P. O. Box 1035, Toledo, Ohio. Mr. R. H. LEVIS, Alton, Illinois. AUGUST 2, 1932. Dear Uncle HARRY: The two matters that I talked with Edwin about in Chicago the other day that I think are of extreme interest to the Illinois Glass Corporation are the attached proposition that I received from Mr. Gordon, of Kidder, Peabody & Company, to purchase a block of our Owens-Illinois 5% debentures of 1939, and some negotiations that I have had recently with a Mr. I. T. Axton regarding the possibility of the Illinois Company's making an investment in the common stock of the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company, as well as a former negotiation that I had with some other New York people with the thought of the Illinois Company's purchasing some of the convertible preferred stock of the Thatcher Manufacturing Company. Mr. McAdoo was in Toledo to spend a day with me last week and I talked with him regarding this matter. He seemed interested in going along with the Illinois Company in making a purchase of both Hazel-Atlas Glass Company common and Thatcher Manufacturing Company preferred, if the Illinois Company were to be interested in either of these propositions. As I see the situation now, it appears that we are on the eve of straightening out the Hartford patent situation. Hazel-Atlas has come in and taken a license, and yesterday the Knox Glass Company agreed to come in, pay back damages, and take a license. In so doing they have withdrawn from the Miller Feeder Users Defense Association, and other Miller feeder users have expressed their willingness to come in and take a Hartford license if Knox and Hazel-Atlas took a license from Hartford. The only important manufacturers who remain out of Hartford's licensing plan are Ball Brothers and the Root Glass Company. We are negotiating with both of these companies and I am quite confident that they will come in if all of the other feeder operators come in, if for no other reason than to protect fruit-jar licensing, as well as to curtain the licensing of beverage bottle manufacturers. With the plans we now have, there is certain to be a curtailment of the promiscuous manufacture of milk bottles on nonlicensed feeders, which will result in our company's and the Thatcher Company's securing a greater proportion of the available milk-bottle business. This should stabilize the price and increase the earnings of the Thatcher Company. In a recent talk with Mr. Mandeville he advised that they have on hand sufficient cash and Government securities to retire all of their preferred stock and still have adequate working capital for the operation of their business. The stock is $3.50, $50.00 par value preferred, convertible into common at $55.00. It is selling at approximately $25.00, thereby yielding 14%. The Hazel-Atlas common is selling as outlined in the attached memoranda prepared by Frank Morfoot and other data that I have accumulated from time to time that is interesting. Mr. Gordon called me on the telephone this morning and advised that he would be willing to make us a definite offer of 85 for $500,000.00 par value of Owens-Illinois 5% debentures of 1939, and after I talked with him he said that if the bond market improved he might be willing to go as high as 90. The thought that I want to put up to you for your consideration is: Do you think it would be a good plan for the Illinois Glass Corporation to consider selling $250,000.00 par value of its Owens-Illinois 5% debentures at a price of 90, take the proceeds of this sale, and make an investment in the common stock of the Hazel-Atlas Glass Company at a price of approximately $40.00 per share, and a smaller investment in the preferred stock of the Thatcher Manufacturing Company at, say $25.00 per share, investing roughly $150,000.00 in Hazel-Atlas common and $50,000.00 in Thatcher preferred? If you are at all interested in this thought, will you read the attached papers and return them to me with your comments. Should your letter indicate that you would like to go into the matter further, I would be pleased to meet you with Edwin in Chicago and work out further details of the proposition. Edwin is willing for us to make this type of an investment, for he feels as I do, that the Illinois Glass Corporation amounts substantially to an investment trust in the glass industry, and that if we gradually increase our investment in such firms as Hazel-Atlas and Thatcher to a point where we secure representation in their companies, we will have a better idea of the possible future of our investments in the industry as a whole, and thus probably become a more dominant factor in the glass container industry than any other investor in it. Mr. McAdoo feels that the thought is a good one and that his people would be interested in going along with us on a joint account basis. He would not want to be identified with the purchase in any way and would want to feel that we would represent their investment so long as they cared to have us do so. I promised Mr. McAdoo that when you had finished with the attached papers I would forward them to him, so that he would not have to gather the same information. Will you please, therefore, send them to me with a copy of your reply. Edwin had a chance to look over the attached papers when I was in Chicago, and therefore I am not sending a duplicate set to him, although I am sending him a copy of this letter so that he will be familiar with what I have written you. Sincerely, W. E. Levis (Signed) WILLIAM. EXHIBIT No. 134 [Compiled by Department of Justice staff from patent data furnished by Hartford-Enpire Company] Mr. Wм. E. LEVIS. APRIL 12, 1930. STATUS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUITS NOW PENDING SUITS BROUGHT BY HARTFORD ON FEEDER PATENTS Following the settlements arrived at between Hartford, The Owens Bottle Company, Tucker, Reeves & Beatty, and William J. Miller, Hartford was able to get a number of applications out of interference and to issue patents upon them during the winter of 1925-26, and immediately thereafter (spring of 1926) suits were brought by Hartford against Obear-Nester, Nivison-Weiskopf, KeansGorsuch, and the Lamb Glass Company, as follows I. St. Louis Suits 1. Hartford-Empire vs. Obear-Nester (1st suit), filed in the U. S. District Court in St. Louis, April 1926. This suit was decided by Judge Faris, October 1938, who held both patents valid and infringed, except as to the first ten claims of the Peiler patent, which he found invalid because functional. Appealed to the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which affirmed the Lower Court in an opinion filed February 24, 1930. Obear-Nester stand enjoined from using the plunger feeder which they formerly employed. Steps to extend the injunction to their air-vacuum feed are being considered (see below). The patents sued upon in the above case were— Steimer No. 1,564,909 December 8, 1925 The Steimer patent relates only to plunger feeders. The Peiler patent listed is known as the phase change patent, and may apply to any gob feeder, whether or not it employs a plunger. At the time this first Obear-Nester suit was filed, defendant was using a plunger feeder, but some months later changed to an air-vacuum pressure feeder without any plunger, designed by Stuckey. When these facts developed, Hartford filed another suit against Obear-Nester, as follows 2. Hartford-Empire vs. Obear-Nester (2d suit), filed in the U. S. District Court, St. Louis, February 25, 1929, charging infringement of the following Hartford's efforts to get a trial in this case have not as yet been successful. However the trial is now expected to take place early next fall. II. CINCINNATI SUIT Hartford-Empire vs. Nivison-Weiskopf, filed in the U. S. District Court in Cincinnati, April, 1926, charging infringement of the same two patents, to Steimer No. 1,564,909, and Peiler No. 1,573,742, that were involved in the first ObearNester suit in St. Louis. Later a supplemental bill was filed to bring in a third patent-to The single claim of this third patent relates to the vertical adjustability of the shears with relation to the orifice. This Cincinnati suit (involving the above three patents) was tried last June before Judge Hickenlooper, who in October, 1929, filed an opinion in favor of Hartford on the Peiler phase change patent, but finding the Steimer and the Peiler shear adjustment patent invalid. This decision has been appealed to the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and will probably be argued before that court this spring. Judge Hickenlooper's decision on the Peiler phase change patent was particularly noticeable in that he held the first ten claims of the patent valid and infringed, notwithstanding the decision of Judge Faris in St. Louis (subsequently affirmed by the St. Louis Court of Appeals), followed by the decision of Special Master Jones in the Columbus suits (see below), finding these first ten claims invalid as functional. It now remains for the Court of Appeals at Cincinnati to decide, among other questions, whether it will follow Judge Hickenlooper or the St. Louis courts in respect to these claims. III. COLUMBUS SUITS 1. Hartford-Empire v. Kearns-Gorsuch, filed in the U. S. District Court in Columbus, May, 1926, charging infringement of the same patents, to Steimer No. 1,564,909, and Peiler No. 1,573,742, that were involved in the Pittsburgh and Cincinnati suits. Subsequently a supplemental Bill of Complaint was filed, adding two more patents Peiler No. 1,589,304 No. 1,631,107 June 15, 1926. The first of these is the patent on shear height adjustment which was also introduced into the Cincinnati case, against Nivison-Weiskopf. The last mentioned patent is what is known as the "whittling" patent. It involves the shaping of the gob by adjusting the relative movements of the plunger and shears. 2. Hartford-Empire vs. Lamb Glass Company, filed in the U. S. District Court in Columbus, charging infringement of the same patents, to Steimer No. 1,564,909, and Peiler No. 1,573,742, and patents to These patents relate to the revolving plunger. The Peiler "whittling" patent No. 1,631,107 was later introduced into the Lamb case also by a supplemental bill. Subsequently both of these Columbus suits were assigned to Hon. Berne Jones, as Special Master, to hear the evidence and report his findings to the Court, with recommendations as to the proper decree to be entered. After hearing the evidence, Master Jones, in May 1929, handed down decisions in both of these Columbus cases. In both cases the Peiler phase change patent No. 1,573,742, was found valid and infringed, except as to the first ten claims which, following Judge Faris of St. Louis, were held invalid as functional. The Steimer patent No. 1,564,909, and the Peiler "whittling" patent No. 1,631,107 were found not to be infringed by either the Kearns-Gorsuch or the Lamb feeders. In the Kearns-Gorsuch suit, the Peiler shear height adjustment patent No. 1,589,304 was held limited and not infringed. In the Lamb case, the Soubier patent was found valid and infringed. The Ferngren patent was found not to be infringed. Both sides filed exceptions to the Master's report, and after various delays imposed by the Court, these exceptions were argued before Judge Hough in February of the present year. As yet he has not handed down a decision on those arguments, and he has intimated his intention not to make any decision until after the Court of Appeals at Cincinnati has decided the Kearns-Gorsuch case. This would |