Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | Docket 23886.,No. 313,313 |
| Citation | 233 F.2d 9 |
| Parties | VERMONT STRUCTURAL SLATE COMPANY, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TATKO BROTHERS SLATE COMPANY, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
John C. Blair, Stamford, Conn., Clarence S. Lyon, Stamford, Conn., of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.
W. Brown Morton, Jr., New York City, Maxwell E. Sparrow, New York City, James F. Sennett, Granville, N. Y., of counsel, for defendant-appellant.
Before FRANK, MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This is a suit for a declaratory judgment declaring defendant's patent invalid. The judge entered judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. The facts are amply stated in the opinion of Judge Foley, reported in D.C., 134 F. Supp. 4. We agree with his conclusion.
Summary judgment represents a most useful legal invention to save time and expense, by the avoidance of a trial, when there exist no material fact-issues. It may well be that, in a patent case, a judge should exercise unusual caution in granting a summary judgment. But there are patent cases where it would be an absurd waste of time and effort to deny such a judgment. This is such a case.1
In many a patent suit, there arise issues of fact as to which the testimony of expert witnesses may be important. Then the credibility of those witnesses is crucial, and it would be erroneous, by a summary judgment, to deprive either party of a "live trial" at which the trial court could observe the witnesses' demeanor in evaluating their testimony.2 There was no such issue here. The prior art and the patent claims are, without expert aid, easily understandable by anyone of the most modest intelligence. Nor did it require expert testimony to make it plain that the differences between the prior art and the patent claims were obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the trade at the time the alleged invention was made.
There was but one material issue of fact here, which defendant in the district court described as the On that issue, the trial judge fully accepted the statements in the affidavits filed by defendant as demonstrating (to quote the judge) "that this new arrangement of boards and stringers brought an advancement in utility, safety and economy in the industry." On that basis, he found as a fact: It follows that the credibility of witnesses on this issue of fact was not involved. The judge therefore correctly rejected the contention made by defendant in the court below that, on this issue, the judge "should await the presentation of testimony." If the question of patentable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.
...391, 181 Ct.Cl. 55 (1967). 7 See Parmelee Pharmaceutical Co. v. Zink, 285 F.2d 465 (8th Cir. 1961). 8 Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate Co., 233 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. den., 352 U.S. 917, 77 S.Ct. 216, 1 L. Ed.2d 9 Eight additional complaints have been filed as of Octo......
-
Delco Chemicals v. Cee-Bee Chemical Co.
...by the prior art, it becomes the duty of the court to grant summary judgment on the issue of validity. See Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate Co., 2 Cir., 233 F.2d 9, certiorari denied, 1956, 352 U.S. 917, 77 S.Ct. 216, 1 L.Ed.2d 123; Syracuse v. Paris, supra, 234 F.2d 65; Bo......
-
Pahuta v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc.
...are unnecessary because of an absence of material issues of fact for the jury to decide. See, e.g., Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate Co., 233 F.2d 9, 10 (2d Cir.1956). "Once trial began, the summary judgment motion [ ] effectively became moot." Black v. J.I. Case Co., 22 F.......
-
GENERAL BRONZE CORPORATION v. Ward Products Corp.
...120 F.Supp. 235, aff'd 2 Cir., 229 F.2d 440; Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate Co., Inc., D.C., 134 F.Supp. 4, aff'd 2 Cir., 233 F.2d 9, cert. den. 352 U.S. 917, 77 S.Ct. 216, 1 L.Ed.2d The presentation at the week-long trial and submission of delayed but substantial briefin......