DocketNumber: Civ. A. No. 57-1117
Citation Numbers: 164 F. Supp. 265
Judges: Aldrich
Filed Date: 8/20/1958
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
This is an action for infringement of Patent No. 2,792,656 in which both parties move for summary judgment. Neither questions the appropriateness of the procedure, George P. Converse & Co. v. Polaroid Corp., 1 Cir., 242 F.2d 116, but they dispute the conclusions to be drawn.
No such article has ever previously been patented or manufactured for this precise purpose. Admittedly, the device is simple. Defendants say it is obvious. Plaintiff cautions me, as every patent judge who ever lived has been cautioned, against Monday-morning-quarterbacking. So general is this advice that sensitive judges may well hesi
There is nothing new about ornamental studs attached by prongs, as such. Plaintiff’s specifications contain no limitations as to the shape or composition (other than that they be integral) of the prongs. The only asserted invention is the inclusion of a peripheral, integral ring or hook. This is a mechancial, not a design, patent. Once it has been determined that women
In short, in spite of whatever presumption plaintiff may be entitled to from the issuance of the patent,
. On the issue passed upon in this opinion there is no disputed testimony, and the parties have stated that nothing further would be offered in case of trial.
. Plaintiff describes it as a Chinese copy, an improper use of the term, as I believe a Chinese copy is one including unwanted imperfections and no one suggests any here.
. And “some foolish men” (plaintiff’s deposition) .
. See, also, Reynolds, No. 460,161, Sept. 29, 1891. I do not pass on the validity of plaintiff’s distinction that in Reynolds the ring was used to suspend the vault itself, rather than to suspend something from the vault, but Reynolds is another illustration of the fact there is nothing novel about an integral ring for attachment purposes.
. It is also a dangerous argument for plaintiff to make, because some of his contentions suggest that the stud with ring is invention for the very reason that it serves the utilitarian purpose of attaching light dangling ornaments. Plaintiff also suggests that Wardner was inoperative and abandoned. If that was so it apparently was only because Wardner lacked strength for its anticipated utilitarian aspect which plaintiff does not require.
. I believe the Examiner concerned himself with distinguishing certain earlier patents, as to which, strictly, I might be inclined to agree with him (noting, however, that Wardner was not cited), and failed to see the woods for the trees.