Bain v. MA Hanna Company, 15025.
Decision Date | 18 May 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 15025.,15025. |
Citation | 331 F.2d 974 |
Parties | Charles Kremer BAIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The M. A. HANNA COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, and Blaw-Knox Company, Intervenor-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Edmund C. Rogers, St. Louis, Mo., (Lawrence C. Kingsland, St. Louis, Mo., James P. Hume, Chicago, Ill., George S. Roudebush, St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Walter J. Blenko, Sr., Pittsburgh, Pa. (Paul Rahm, Iron Mountain, Mich., Walter J. Blenko, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.
Before MILLER and CECIL, Circuit Judges, and THORNTON, District Judge.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the District Court holding that (1) all of the claimed novel features of Bain Patent No. 2,667,750 had been described in the cited prior art and specifications, (2) Bain Patent No. 2,667,750 is lacking in novelty and invention, and (3) the method used by defendant in the sinking of the Homer-Wauseca shaft was neither a copy nor was it the equivalent of the method described in Bain Patent No. 2,667,750. This determination concluded an action for damages for alleged infringement of a patent covering a "method and apparatus for sinking mine shafts," being United States Patent No. 2,667,750 issued to plaintiff-appellant February 2, 1954.
The opinion of the District Judge recites that:
The main thrust of plaintiff's contention here, as advanced in briefs and argument, is best stated in plaintiff's own language, appearing in his brief, as follows:
Preliminarily, we will appraise the foregoing criticism in the light of what the record before us discloses. In his opinion the District Judge stated that "(I)t was with difficulty that the Court determined from plaintiff's proofs and arguments the elements of novelty upon which the plaintiff relied." We appreciate here on review the District Court's "difficulty" as we attempt to reconcile the content of plaintiff's briefs and argument with the testimony and exhibits. Because of plaintiff's insistence that the District Judge was confused in his deliberations, a few excerpts from the transcript of the trial court proceedings will perhaps serve to pinpoint the source of any confusion that may have become inherent in the totality of the lower court record. The following colloquy between the District Judge and plaintiff's counsel is illuminating in this regard:
Another excerpt of interest in a similar vein is from an examination of plaintiff by his own counsel. It reads as follows:
A third excerpt we deem helpful to set forth is from the testimony of an expert produced by plaintiff. It follows:
As part of plaintiff's theory of confusion on the part of the Trial Judge, plaintiff asserts that there was error in considering the Bain method claims as if they were claims for structural combinations. We assume that the basis of plaintiff's contention in this regard is the reference by the District Judge, in his opinion, to the use of certain apparatus and/or structural combinations in describing the function of the Bain method. In making this charge plaintiff apparently has lost sight of the fact that Bain Patent No. 2,667,750 is headed "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SINKING MINE SHAFTS" and that each of Claims 1, 2 and 3 of that patent, which the plaintiff here alleges has been infringed, is headed "The Method of Sinking Mine Shafts," and that each claim then goes on to place structural parts or forms in certain positions so that the method of sinking a mine shaft can function as per the claims. Supportive of the propriety of the Trial Judge's use of structural or apparatus terms in his consideration of the patent in suit is the following statement made by counsel for plaintiff at the trial of this cause:
The last few excerpts we wish to set forth here serve to make abundantly clear, we think, that plaintiff's contention as to the "confusion" of the Trial Judge is unfounded. The excerpts are as follows:
We will now direct our attention to the three claims of Bain Patent No. 2,667,750 here in suit. In his application for this patent Bain represented under oath as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Diversified Products Corporation v. Sports Stores, Inc.
...Cir. 1959). The defendants have not urged the Court to adopt the rule of those cases but agree, citing, inter alia, Bain v. M. A. Hanna Co., 331 F.2d 974, 978 (6th Cir. 1964), that the Court in deciding whether the claim here is anticipated and lacks the requisite novelty must determine if ......
-
Westwood Chemical, Inc. v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 20845.
...We agree. The District Court's holding of invalidity should only apply to the patents' claims directly in issue. Bain v. M. A. Hanna Company, 331 F.2d 974 (6th Cir. 1964), cf. Goodwin v. Carloss Company, 116 F.2d 644 (6th Cir. 1941). However, plaintiff further argues that the only claims in......
-
Langsett v. Marmet Corporation
...the court now decides the issue of infringement, assuming for that purpose that the '978 patent is valid." See, also, Bain v. M. A. Hanna Co., 331 F.2d 974 (6th Cir. 1964). This hypothesis is necessary in considering infringement because it is clear that an invalid patent cannot be infringe......
-
Hughes Tool Co. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 28704.
...Co., 394 F.2d 357 (6th Cir. 1968). See also Amphenol Corp. v. General Time Corp., 397 F.2d 431 (7th Cir. 1968); Bain v. M. A. Hanna Co., 331 F.2d 974 (6th Cir. 1964); 1 Walker on Patents § 57 (2d Ed. 1964). Anticipation (lack of novelty) by a prior art structure is largely a question of fac......