419 F.2d 968 (7th Cir. 1969), 17426, Dole Valve Co. v. Perfection Bar Equipment, Inc.

Docket Nº:17426.
Citation:419 F.2d 968, 164 U.S.P.Q. 65
Party Name:The DOLE VALVE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PERFECTION BAR EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:December 11, 1969
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 968

419 F.2d 968 (7th Cir. 1969)

164 U.S.P.Q. 65

The DOLE VALVE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PERFECTION BAR EQUIPMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17426.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

December 11, 1969

Page 969

William Marshall Lee, Richard G. Lione, Gerald D. Hosier, Hume, Clement, Hume & Lee, George E. Hale, George W. K. Snyder, Jr., Wilson & McIlvaine, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee, Perfection Bar Equipment, Inc.

Before DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge, KERNER, Circuit Judge, and GRANT, 1 District Judge.

DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant (Dole) charges Perfection Bar Equipment, Inc. (Perfection) with infringement of the Wallace R. Kromer Patent No. 3,162,323 (323) owned by Dole. Perfection filed a counterclaim relating to various antitrust allegations. This counterclaim was severed for separate trial to be held at a later date.

Issued in 1964, the Kromer patent in suit covers a 'method of and apparatus for carbonating, cooling, storing, distributing and dispensing beverages. * * *'

The general subject matter of the patent in suit as well as the accused structures, concerns a continuously circulating soda water dispensing system of a type which is arranged to dispense a beverage from a storage receptacle by way of dispensing heads located at one or more remote stations. The cooling and carbonation of water takes place at one point and the dispensing of the carbonated water from the system takes place at a remote point.

Three soda dispensing systems which had been marketed by defendant were charged to infringe claims of the patent in suit. They were the 'Strenger' system charged to infringe claims 2 to 6, inclusive; the Dunham-Bush 'RB' system also charged with infringing claims 2 to 6, inclusive, and the 'Richards' system which is defendant's current commercial system, was charged to infringe only claims 2 and 3.

The trial court held that both the Strenger and Dunham-Bush RB systems infringed claims 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the patent in suit. No appeal has been taken from this ruling.

The trial court also held that the Richards system did not infringe claims 2 and 3. Appellant claims the trial court was in error in this respect.

Appellant challenges the finding and conclusion of the trial court that the patent in suit was anticipated by German patents, Laubach No. 288,219 and Laubach No. 280,997, issued in 1915 and 1914 respectively. Appellant also challenges the finding that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP