Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co.
Citation | 151 F.2d 91 |
Decision Date | 15 October 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 10546.,10546. |
Parties | RALPH N. BRODIE CO. et al. v. HYDRAULIC PRESS MFG. CO. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Oscar A. Mellin, of San Francisco, Cal., and Edward A. Hathaway, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.
Toulmin & Toulmin, of Dayton, Ohio (Jack E. Hursh, of San Francisco, Cal., and D. C. Staley and Rowan A. Greer, both of Dayton, Ohio, of counsel) for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, STEPHENS, and BONE, Circuit Judges.
Appellee (The Hydraulic Press Manufacturing Company) brought a suit against appellants (The Ralph N. Brodie Company and The Pelton Water Wheel Company)1 and others for infringement of three pattents (Nos. 2,067,265, 2,136,240 and 2,167,941) owned by appellee. Answering, appellants pleaded as defenses that the patents were invalid, and that, if valid, they were not infringed. The case was tried by the court without a jury. In the course of the trial, the suit was dismissed as to all defendants except appellants. The court held that claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of patent No. 2,067,265 and claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 of patent No. 2,136,240 were valid and infringed by appellants and entered a judgment (51 F.Supp. 202) which enjoined such infringement, ordered an accounting of profits and damages and dismissed the suit as to patent No. 2,167,941. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellants say that the court erred (1) in holding that claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of patent No. 2,067,265 and claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 of patent No. 2,136,240 were valid and (2) in holding that these claims were infringed by appellants.
Patent No. 2,067,265 was applied for by Walter Ernst (appellee's assignor) on July 19, 1934, and was issued on January 12, 1937. The specifications of this patent stated: "This invention relates to hydraulic presses and, in particular, to such presses arranged for drawing metal blanks into articles of various shapes, the press including means for clamping the metal blank while the drawing operation is taking place." A hydraulic press embodying this alleged invention was described in the specification of this patent.
Patent No. 2,136,240 was applied for by Ernst on April 16, 1936, and was issued on November 8, 1938. The specification of this patent stated: "This invention relates to hydraulic presses, and in particular, to drawing presses." A hydraulic press embodying this alleged invention was described in the specification of this patent.
The press described in the specification of patent No. 2,067,265 and the press described in the specification of patent No. 2,136,240 each contain a pressing plunger;2 a pressing cylinder3 containing the head and upper portion of the pressing plunger; a platen connected to and operated by the pressing plunger; an upper die4 connected to the platen; a lower die5 on which is placed a metal blank or work-piece; a pair of clamping plungers;6 a pair of clamping cylinders,7 each containing the head and upper portion of one of the clamping plungers; a clamping member connected to and operated by the clamping plungers;8 means for supplying and conducting pressure fluid to each of the cylinders;9 means for expelling, releasing and discharging pressure fluid from each of the cylinders; and means for restricting and controlling the flow of pressure fluid to and from each of the cylinders.10
Claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of patent No. 2,067,265 read as follows:
Claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 of patent No. 2,136,240 read as follows:
Both patents were regularly issued. Hence both patents and all claims thereof were presumptively valid.11 Hence the burden of establishing the invalidity of claims 7, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of patent No. 2,067,265 and claims 7, 8, 9 and 10 of patent No. 2,136,240 rested on appellants.12
All these claims were for combinations. Appellants alleged, in substance and effect, that these combinations were not new,13 and that therefore the claims were invalid for lack of novelty. The question thus presented was one of fact.14 On this question, appellants had the burden...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pointer v. Six Wheel Corporation
...Co., 9 Cir., 1939, 106 F.2d 530, 533; Hazeltine Corp. v. Crosley Corp., 6 Cir., 1944, 130 F.2d 344; Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co., 9 Cir., 1945, 151 F.2d 91, 94; General Metals Powder Co. v. S. K. Wellman Co., 6 Cir., 1946, 157 F.2d 505, 508; Maulsby v. Conzevoy, 9 Cir., 1......
-
Kemart Corp. v. Printing Arts Research Laboratories
...v. York Corporation, 9 Cir., 168 F.2d 896, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 859, 69 S.Ct. 133, 93 L.Ed. 406; Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co., 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 91. 5 United States v. Esnault-Pelterie, 303 U. S. 26, 30, 58 S.Ct. 412, 82 L.Ed. 625; Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winter......
-
KOOL VENT METAL A. CORP. v. AMERICAN BEAUTY VAA CO.
...Co. v. Williams-Wallace 9 Cir. 1941, 117 F.2d 823; Ninth Circuit: Park-In Theatres v. Rogers, 1942, 130 F.2d 745; Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic, 1945, 151 F.2d 91; Patterson-Ballagh Corp. v. Moss, 1953, 201 F.2d 403; Tenth Circuit: Ratigan v. Deckard, 1937, 91 F.2d 722; Harris v. Nationa......
-
Bergman v. Aluminum Lock Shingle Corp. of America
...line of decisions that the question of invention presented a question of fact. A case much cited was Ralph N. Brodie Co. v. Hydraulic Press Mfg. Co., 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 91, 94, where in referring to the appellant's contention that the combinations did not involve invention and that therefore ......