In the late 1940s, National Scientific Products Co. (NSP), contracted with one Allen L. Atkins to develop an inexpensive scrollsaw and sander. Atkins' design was manufactured by NSP, who sold about 30,000 saws in 1949, many of them through their Chicago retail store. Late in 1949, NSP, who were already manufacturing a similar saw for Burgess Vibrocrafters, Inc. (BVI), decided to cease manufacture of the Atkins saw and solicited an offer from BVI for the "tools, dies, and inventory for the manufacture of the Atkins saw." BVI made an offer but NSP instead accepted an offer from Allen Atkins' company, A. L. Atkins & Co., who began manufacture under the Atkins name. In 1950 Allen Atkins was granted a design patent on the saw.

The November 1949 issue of "Popular Mechanics" has an ad for the "New! Jig saw for lad and Dad!... Atkins National ..." The ad's order coupon is addressed to A. L. Atkins & Co., 4364 Easton Ave., Chicago, Ill. The saw cost $12 including shipping.

BVI filed suit against Atkins & Co.—which became Atkins, Inc. at some point during this process—claiming that Atkins' design patent infringed their design patent D162279. Atkins counter-claimed that BVI was engaging in various unfair practices. When the legal dust had settled, Atkins' design patent was ruled invalid but all other claims were rejected.

The Federal reporter, Volume 204, by United States. Court of Claims, District of Columbia. Court of Appeals: Burgess Vibrocrafters, Inc., filed suit against Atkins, Industries, Inc. over Design patent D161,025. Atkins counter-claimed that BVI had introduced a saw infringing on their design patent, and advertised it in a manner intended to confuse the public into thinking that it was the Atkins saw. The District Court found in favor of the defendant on all issues. Unusually, "the plaintiff was enjoined from further patent and trademark infringement and unfair competition, an accounting was ordered to determine the defendants' damages, and it was ordered that the defendants recover from the plaintiff reasonable attorney fees." BVI appealed. In the decision for the appeal it is noted that,

The Atkins saw was developed pursuant to an arrangement entered into early in 1949 between Atkins and the National Scientific Products Co. This arrangement provided that Hoffman, an employee of National, should work with Atkins; that Atkins should pay the development costs and that he should own the patent. After the design of the patent in suit was developed National went into the business of manufacturing the saw under an agreement with Atkins to pay him a royalty on sales. About 30,000 saws were sold during the 1949 season.

Among National's customers was the plaintiff, Burgess, a manufacturer and distributor of various electrical tools. The plaintiff sold about 10,000 of the Atkins saws, in part over the counter of its retail store in Chicago, but principally through mail orders solicited by newspaper and magazine advertisements.

Late in 1949 National decided to discontinue the manufacture of the Atkins saw, so informed Burgess and asked for and received from Burgess an offer for the purchase of the tools, dies and inventories for the manufacture of the Atkins saw. The Burgess offer was never accepted because Atkins decided to undertake the manufacture of the jig saw himself and he purchased the business from National. The plaintiff thereupon decided to develop its own jig saw. A Chicago designing firm was then employed and paid $2,500 for designing the Burgess saw. In July of 1950 Burgess placed on the market the saw which had been so designed for it. After the Atkins design patent was issued in November of 1950, but previous to the issuance of the patent on the Burgess saw, Atkins circularized the trade, charging that the Burgess saw was an infringement of his design patent and threatening the plaintiff's customers with suit for infringement. Burgess thereupon filed its action for a declaratory judgment.

...[A]fter a very careful study of all the evidence in this case, including the physical and documentary exhibits, we are convinced that the design covered by the Atkins patent does not exhibit that creative artistry requisite to the monopoly protection which the statute accords.

In addition, the Court of Appeals rejected Atkins' counterclaim of trademark infringement on the term "3-in-1". Further, BVI's ads, while similar in layout to Atkins' ads, prominently featured the BVI name and logo, and they refer to BVI's "built-in automatic blower", a feature not present in the Atkins saw; therefore, there was no "[attempt] to deceive the public with regard to the identity of the Burgess saw." The Court of Appeals decision rejected all of Atkins' counterclaims and further found that Allen Atkins' design patent was invalid.

Information Sources

• We have seen only a couple of mentions of used Atkins jigsaws. Although 30,000 of them were sold in one year alone, it appears that most of them have long since been thrown away.
• Ads in Popular Mechanics for A. L. Atkins & Co.: November 1949, February 1950.
• Ads in Popular Science for A. L. Atkins & Co.: January 1950.
• A one-page article in the December 1949 Popular Science shows the Atkins sander: "Junior-size shop equipment, this jig-saw, sander, and filing machine has a built-in motor. Its saw cuts to the center of a 16-inch circle. The toy has a sanding table, and uses 3/4-inch machine files. It's made by National Scientific Products Co., Chicago, and costs $11.95."
• We found the complete text of the Appeals Court decision on AltLaw.org.
• A small scrollsaw belonging to Bob Holcombe implies a connection between Atkins and Hamilton Ross Industries. Compare Bob's Atkins saw with this Hamilton Ross saw. Note that both saws have the address, "5823 N. Ravenswood Ave. / Chicago 26, Ill. U.S.A." Thanks to Bob Holcombe for reporting this connection to us.