American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co.

Decision Date02 March 1931
Docket NumberNo. 48.,48.
Citation283 U.S. 1
PartiesAMERICAN FRUIT GROWERS, INCORPORATED, v. BROGDEX CO.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.

Messrs. W. Brown Morton and R.T.M. McCready, with whom Mr. George E. Middleton was on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Charles Neave, with whom Messrs. Melville Church, Roy F. Steward, and Mitford C. Massie were on the brief, for respondent.

MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Brogdex Company, present owner of United States Letters Patent No. 1,529,461, relating to "certain new and useful improvements in the art of preparing fresh fruit for market," applied for August 13, 1923, and issued to Brogden and Trowbridge March 10, 1925, presented its bill of complaint to the District Court for Delaware April 15, 1926, wherein it charged that the defendant (petitioner here), the American Fruit Growers, Inc., had infringed, and asked an injunction, accounting, damages, etc. It relied upon Claims Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18, which describe the process of treatment, also Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26, which concern the product.

Both courts below held all of these claims valid and infringed; and directed that petitioner be enjoined from using any process therein specified, also from manufacturing, selling, or using "treated fruit embodying and containing the invention described in said letters patent and secured by any of said product claims."

Of the process claims, the following is characteristic —

"3. In the preparation of fresh fruit for market, the process which comprises subjecting fruit to the action of an aqueous solution of borax, the fluidity, strength and temperature of the treating solution, and the duration of the treatment, being such that exposed rind or skin tissues of the fruit are effectively impregnated with borax and rendered resistant to blue mold decay, while at the same time the fruit is not scalded nor is its freshness or edibility otherwise substantially impaired."

The following is typical of the product claims —

"26. Fresh citrus fruit of which the rind or skin carries borax in amount that is very small but sufficient to render the fruit resistant to blue mold decay."

"The claim of a patent must always be explained by and read in connection with the specification." Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U.S. 403, 432.

The specification in respect of the patent states —

"This invention relates to art of preparing fresh fruit for market; and in particular it relates to processes for the treatment of citrus and other fruits in such manner that the development of molds and the like upon the fruit, and especially the development of blue mold and infection by blue mold spores, is prevented or arrested either wholly or to such large extent as greatly to prolong the marketable life of the fruit beyond what has been possible heretofore; the complete treatment most desirably also including a step of providing the fruit with a very thin film-like coating of protective material comprising a waxy substance such as paraffin; all as will more fully hereinafter appear.

"The greatest present utility of the invention is in the treatment of citrus fruits such as oranges, grapefruit, lemons, tangerines, etc.; also apples and other fruits that are attacked by blue mold or the like. The invention is broad, however, and the term fruit as herein employed is to be understood as not necessarily restricted to fruit in the sense in which the word is usually employed, but is to be understood broadly as including not only fruit proper but also vegetables, such as tomatoes or the like, that can be treated to advantage in accordance with the principles of the invention to be hereinafter set forth.

"For the sake of a concrete example whereby the principles of the invention may be illustrated and explained, reference will be made hereinafter more particularly to the treatment of citrus fruit, especially oranges and lemons, which are especially subject to attack and destruction by blue mold. It is a well-known fact that a large part of the losses from decay in the marketing of various fruits, such as citrus fruits and apples, is attributable directly to the action of blue mold. The problem of how to suppress or control blue mold development on fruits has been the subject of extensive and careful investigation, but admittedly no thoroughly satisfactory solution of the problem has heretofore been offered. In spite of elaborate precautions taken in the handling and transportation of fruits to market, it is not uncommon for shipments of oranges and the like to arrive at marketing points showing in some cases as much as 30 to 40 per cent decay directly attributable to blue mold. The various investigations of the subject have shown that while blue mold does not ordinarily attack perfectly sound fruit that is free from bruises, cuts, thorn-pricks or punctures, the slightest surface cut or scratch affords a point of attack by providing lodgment for blue mold spores which develop with great rapidity and soon bring about complete destruction of the infected fruit.. . .

"The present applicants have discovered that by proper treatment of the fruit in the packing house it is possible to greatly reduce, and often to absolutely prevent, the growth or development of blue mold on fruit for long periods of time, and thus to materially lessen or even eliminate the heretofore unavoidable losses from decay. Moreover, it is possible to achieve these results without upsetting or greatly changing present practice so far as concerns the mechanical handling of fruit in packing houses of the modern type. Thorough practical tests of the novel processes have demonstrated conclusively that, by proceeding in accordance with the invention, blue mold development can be arrested, and fruit can be rendered immune to attack by blue mold spores, in a simple and effective manner without affecting the freshness and flavor of the fruit, the marketable life of the fruit being thus prolonged far beyond that of untreated fruit. In view of the well known persistent activity of blue mold spores even under conditions fatal to the parent mold, the importance of this achievement is obvious. In general, the process of the invention involves applying to the fruit a mold-inhibiting reagent comprising the boric acid radical, said compound being most desirably alkaline in reaction and being employed in concentration effective to render the surface of the fruit unfavorable as a medium for blue mold development. Ordinary borax (Na1B4O7 + 1OH2O) has been found after extensive investigation, to be especially potent in its retarding and inhibiting action in this connection, and this substance is considered at present to be the most desirable to employ in practicing the invention. A water solution of borax is alkaline in reaction, but is without corrosive or other deteriorating action upon fruit to which it is applied. Boric acid is not so effective as a mold-retarder as is borax; but compounds of boron, whether acid or alkaline, appear to have a specific inhibiting action upon blue mold; and hence it is not desired to limit the invention, so far as concerns compounds of boron, to the employment of an alkaline treating solution.

"The method of applying the treating solution to the fruit may assume various specifically different forms, the precise details of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
117 cases
  • Application of Bergy
    • United States
    • United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
    • 29 Marzo 1979
    ...(see n. 3, supra) now lead me to the conclusion that even under the analysis provided in American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L.Ed. 801, 8 USPQ 131 (1930), the claimed microorganism is a "manufacture" within the meaning of the 6 Supplemental brief of the......
  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 16 Junio 1980
    ...new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery." American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S.Ct. 328, 330, 75 L.Ed. 801 (1931). Similarly, "composition of matter" has been construed consistent with its common usage to include "......
  • Ass'n For Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • 5 Abril 2010
    ...identifying it was costly or time-consuming. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 68 S.Ct. 440; Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11-13, 51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L.Ed. 801 (1931); Gen. Elec. Co. v. De Forest Radio Co., 28 F.2d 641, 642-43 (3d Cir.1928). The distinction between ......
  • In re Bilski
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • 30 Octubre 2008
    ...which I understand to be something made by the hands of man." Id. at 98 (emphases added); accord American Fruit Growers v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L.Ed. 801 (1931) (giving "anything made for use from raw or prepared materials" as one definition of In short, the history......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
8 books & journal articles
  • Exclusivity Without Patents: The New Frontier of FDA Regulation for Genetic Materials
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 98-4, May 2013
    • 1 Mayo 2013
    ...patent description”). 151. O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 119 (1854). 152. Id. ; see also Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 (1931); Shell Dev. Co. v. Watson, 149 F. Supp. 279, 283 (D.D.C. 1957). 153. Chakrabarty , 447 U.S. at 310. 154. John M. Golden, Patentab......
  • Chapter §23.04 Remedies for Infringement of Design Patents
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Mueller on Patent Law Volume II: Patent Enforcement Title CHAPTER 23 Design Patents
    • Invalid date
    ...qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.' ") (quoting American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S. Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801 (1931))).[197] See Samsung Elecs., 137 S. Ct. at 435 (citing cf. 8 D. Chisum, Patents §23.03[2], pp. 23–12 to......
  • A Field Guide to Intellectual Property
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 9-1, January 1980
    • Invalid date
    ...Hruby, 373 F.2d 997, 153 U.S.P.Q. 61 (CCPA 1967). In re Hadden, 20 F.2d 275 (D.D.C. 1927). 12. American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1,51 S.Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801 (1931). 13. Carbon black pellets held patentable. Binney & Smith Co. v. United Carbon Co., 125 F. 255, 52 U.S.P.......
  • That's Easy! I Can Do That With Pen and Paper!: Why the Mental Steps Doctrine Could Bring an End to Patent Protection for Software
    • United States
    • University of North Carolina School of Law North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology No. 13-2011, January 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...the original purpose of the patent system to encompass any new and useful invention); American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11 (1931) (using a dictionary to define a manufacture as "the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these mater......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT